Create Gateway (Deprecated)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the name and description both claim a create/mutation operation. This is a direct contradiction of the structured safety metadata, leaving the agent unable to tell whether calling this mutates state or is a safe read.

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?

A single compact sentence with the deprecation warning placed first, which is the right front-loading for a tool an agent should probably avoid. Nothing is wasted, though the payload sentence is terse to the point of under-specification.

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 creation tool with no output schema and a contradictory readOnlyHint, the description says nothing about what a ProxyGateway boundary is, whether calls are stateful, or how the approval-related parameters behave. The deprecation pointer is the only substantive context provided.

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% with no required parameters, so gatewayId, approvalTTLSeconds, and maxPendingPerAgent are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction notes beyond that, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Create a ProxyGateway enforcement boundary"), which is far more informative than the title alone, and the deprecation tag is front-loaded. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from its gateway siblings (gateway_process_tool_call, gateway_approve, gateway_stats) or explain what an "enforcement boundary" is.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not-to-use instruction: deprecated in v3.0.0, callers should use the gateway.aeoess.com REST API instead. The alternative is external rather than an MCP sibling, and it never says whether the tool still works or for which legacy cases it remains appropriate, so it stops short of a 5.

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