Living Stack: authorize_action

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses a key behavioral guarantee: the tool never executes the action. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as budget reservation, record creation, or rejection behavior.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, and the most important distinction ('never executes it') is front-loaded. Every word 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?

With six parameters, an output schema, and full schema coverage, the minimal description is mostly adequate. It lacks workflow ordering (e.g., after session_start) and side-effect details, but the core never-executes guarantee and complete schema keep it at minimum viable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual grouping ('scope risk and budget') that maps loosely to risk and estimated_cost_usd, but provides no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb ('gate') and resource ('one local host action'), and immediately distinguishes the tool by stating it never executes the action. This separates it from any execution/effect tool and aligns with its name.

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 implies this is a pre-execution authorization step ('Gate... never executes it'), which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to call it relative to session lifecycle tools like session_start, nor name alternatives like check_claim.

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