truthgate_authorize

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool consumes an approval, implying a state change, but does not detail side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or whether the action is irreversible. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks critical details about parameters and behavior. It is not too wordy, but the brevity sacrifices completeness.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, an output schema exists to define the response, but the description does not mention the output format or any preconditions. For a tool with three required parameters and no sibling usage guidance, the description is insufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has three required parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of what task_id, task_digest, or approval_token mean. The description adds zero value beyond the schema titles.

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 clearly states the tool consumes a human-issued approval before a risky action, indicating its role in the authorization flow. It distinguishes from siblings (preflight, verify) by focusing on the final approval step, though it could be more explicit about the exact resource being consumed.

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 description only implies usage 'immediately before a risky action' but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the siblings truthgate_preflight or truthgate_verify. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer proper context.

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