resolve_flow_gate

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

The annotations cover the safety profile (mutation, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: gate state prerequisites, that 'stop' cancels the task, that 'retry' sends work back once more, and that the next step dispatches automatically after the call. It does not describe the response payload or what happens to in-flight work on 'stop', so there is remaining behavioral ambiguity despite good added context.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded: the trigger condition comes before the decision vocabulary and the escalation caveat. The embedded schema paths and the ragged indentation make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be, but no sentence is filler.

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 state-dependent mutation with an output schema already present, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly: how to detect the gate, where to read the reason and findings, how to interpret escalation, and what each decision does downstream.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description restates the decision values in nearly the same words as the schema and names the source of task_id and the pending_decision fields without adding format or edge-case semantics for 'note'. It adds decision-authority context, but that is primarily usage guidance rather than parameter meaning.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'PM decides a workflow review gate that ran out of rounds or rejected the approach', with the exact precondition stated (get_task_status.brief.waiting_on == PM_FLOW_DECISION). An agent can distinguish this from resolve_clarification or review_changes without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit gating rule: check brief.workflow.pending_decision.escalation first, where 'ask_user' means surface findings to the human and wait, and 'auto_pm' means decide immediately then inform the user. It also spells out what each decision value commits to, so both when-to-call and which-value-to-pass are unambiguous.

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