set_approval_gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it discloses little: it never says whether an existing gate is replaced or merged, whether path_rules are overwritten, whether the call is idempotent, or what permissions created_by implies. The only real disclosure is the plan-tier requirement and the marketing sentence about team review and sign-off, which is promotional rather than operational.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clean sentence, but the second sentence is promotional copy and the pricing/upgrade URL consumes space without helping invocation. The 'Requires Kiln Business' line does earn its place.

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 10-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and only 40% schema description coverage, the description leaves an agent unable to call it correctly — key policy parameters and the update-vs-replace semantics are unexplained. It is adequate only for knowing the tool exists, not for using it.

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 coverage is 40% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not — required_count, required_role, required_team_id, path_rules, allow_unsatisfiable and block_changes_requested are never explained. The only schema descriptions present are bare defaults, leaving the meaning of 'unsatisfiable' and path-rule syntax entirely opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (create/update an approval gate) plus the scoping target (a branch), and the upsert nature is clear. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like remove_approval_gate or list_approval_gates, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 one real precondition (Requires Kiln Business), which is genuinely useful for plan-gated routing. However there is no guidance on when to use this versus remove_approval_gate, list_approval_gates, or evaluate_pr_approval, and no mention of what state must exist first.

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