Create Data Enforcement Gate (Deprecated)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description and name describe creating a resource, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is a direct conflict over whether this call mutates state. This is an annotation contradiction that leaves the agent unable to trust the safety profile. Beyond the contradiction, no auth, persistence, or scoping behavior is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact bracketed-plus-sentence elements, with the critical deprecation warning front-loaded before the functional description. No redundancy or filler, though the body is arguably thin for the operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a deprecated one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate and correctly routes the agent to the REST replacement. It is undermined by the unresolved readOnlyHint conflict and the absence of any note on what happens to already-created gates.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'mode' enum (enforce/audit/off) is fully documented in the schema with a default. The description adds no semantics about what the modes mean behaviorally, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a data enforcement gate') plus its function ('checks terms before allowing data access'), which lets an agent understand the operation. The deprecation banner and REST-API pointer further orient it. It doesn't differentiate strongly from the many governance/gate siblings, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The bracketed note '[deprecated in v3.0.0, use the gateway.aeoess.com REST API]' is explicit exclusion guidance pointing to the replacement, which is exactly the when-not-to-use signal an agent needs. It stops short of describing any condition under which the deprecated tool should still be called, so it doesn't reach a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.