ddflow_gate_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for this mutation tool, and it does substantial work. It surfaces a non-obvious failure mode (recording 'passed' when a reviewer couldn't run), explains that command+exit_code turn an assertion into verifiable evidence, mentions the digest being recorded against output_file, and notes the family-independence model requirement. This is meaningful behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing, with the core action and the critical warning front-loaded before supporting detail. The 'IMPORTANT' caveat is prominent where it matters most. Slightly dense, but every clause earns its place with no 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 9-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral traps (unavailable-vs-passed, evidence requirements, digest verification) that an agent must know to avoid silently losing data. It does not describe the return value or confirm whether an id/gate must pre-exist, but it is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the semantic relationship between command and exit_code ('what make an outcome evidence rather than an assertion'), the rejection of gates without them (evidence_required), the requirement that reason accompany failed/unavailable/partial/skipped, and the trust-model purpose of output_file ('a digest is recorded... rather than taken on trust'). It adds genuine interpretability over raw field docs.

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 ('Record the outcome of a gate you performed') and enumerates the exact allowed values (passed/failed/unavailable/partial/skipped). The instruction distinguishes it from sibling gate tools like ddflow_gate_run and ddflow_gate_skip by emphasizing this is the post-hoc recording action, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 strong contextual guidance on when to choose 'unavailable' vs 'passed' and explicitly flags the destructive consequence of misrecording (an entire review silently vanishing). It also instructs passing the reviewer's model for family independence. However, it never names alternative tools (e.g. ddflow_gate_skip, ddflow_gate_status) or states when NOT to use this tool, leaving some routing implicit.

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