ddflow_gate_skip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that skipping requires a reason, that the reason is permanently recorded in the event log, and that required gates still block. It could add whether the operation is reversible or what response shape to expect, but the key side effects are transparent.

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?

Four sentences, with no filler. The core action and mandatory reason are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest supplies decision-relevant constraints. Every sentence earns 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?

Given three simple required parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what side effects to expect, and which gates cannot be skipped. An agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents id, gate, and reason. The description reinforces that reason is mandatory and auditable, but does not add substantial new semantic detail beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Skip a gate ON THE RECORD, with a mandatory reason.' It then distinguishes this tool from the broader act of forcing past everything, making clear it drops a single named step. The phrase 'auditable escape hatch' further differentiates it from gate-related siblings.

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 description explicitly says this is 'the one to reach for' when a gate is blocking completion, and contrasts it with forcing past everything at once. It also sets a clear exclusion: gates listed in `gates.required` still block and are not optional, so an agent knows when NOT to use this tool.

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