record_gate_skip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating write. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations – that the skip is recorded for pattern detection over time and that this is a non-blocking log rather than an enforcement action. It still omits permissions, reversibility, and what 'destructive' actually means here.

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 short and front-loads the action, but the parenthetical '(Design Principle 1)' is internal jargon that consumes space without helping the agent, and the awkward line breaks fragment two otherwise distinct ideas. Adequate but not tight.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the nested input type is well documented. For a mutating tool with destructiveHint=true, though, the description never explains the side effects, idempotency behavior, or error conditions, which leaves gaps an agent cannot fill from structured data alone.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0%, but the single 'params' object references a $defs type whose five required fields (chain_id, skipped_from, skipped_to, reason, partner_assessment) each carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the nested documentation but earns no credit.

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 verb ('Log') and a resource ('session-type leapfrog in chain metadata'), and the schema fields clarify that this records a skipped session type. However, the terminology is opaque ('leapfrog', 'Design Principle 1') and it does not distinguish this tool from any sibling. The purpose is inferable but not stated crisply.

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 line 'Partner flags, explains cost, asks — never refuses' describes conversational flow rather than when to call the tool. There is no condition for use, no prerequisite, and no reference to any alternative tool. An agent must infer that this is called after a human declines an expected session type.

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