agent_authorize

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden, and it delivers little: it does not say whether this is a read-only check or has side effects (e.g. recording the decision), what a denial looks like, or whether it is idempotent. The trailing truncation leaves the core behavior unexplained.

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?

It is short, but it is short because it is truncated mid-word, not because it is tightly written. A fragment ending in 'from the m...' fails front-loading and readability.

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?

A zero-parameter authorization gate with no output schema needs the description to explain the return value (allow/deny shape) and the failure mode. Neither is present, and the sentence is incomplete, so an agent cannot predict what calling it yields.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description's reference to 'one Mesh message' hints at the input the caller must supply elsewhere but adds nothing required beyond that.

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 fragment states a specific decision verb and resource: deciding whether the installed Agent Mesh contract permits acting on one Mesh message. That is more than a restatement of the name, but the sentence is cut off mid-clause ('from the m...') and never distinguishes this gate from siblings like agent_mesh_status or agent_mesh_create.

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?

No when-to-use instructions, no preconditions (e.g. must an agent be joined to a mesh first?), and no mention of alternatives or what to do when authorization is denied. The agent must infer the calling context entirely.

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