gc_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that execute 'may return held: true if the gate requires approval' (a gate/approval mechanism) and that execution is 'LLM-free' and 'deterministic'. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, what approved operations do, reversibility, or failure modes. Partially informative but incomplete.

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 compact with a clear bulleted break-down of the two actions. Every line earns its place. Slight deduction for the cryptic 'Story 3.1' reference and the dash-packed opening line which is somewhat opaque, but overall efficient.

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 execute action that runs arbitrary operations (tool, op, args, idempotency_key) and no output schema, the description is fairly thin. It doesn't explain the relationship between op/tool/args, what 'risk metadata' contains, what held:true implies for the caller's next step, or how approval gating works. For a tool that executes operations with a gate, more completeness is warranted.

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 each parameter has a brief description. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, though 'may return held: true' hints at execute behavior. The action enum is self-explanatory, and the description names the two actions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 states it executes 'approved operations' via deterministic dual-path controls, with two specific actions (manifest and execute). It's clear about verb and resource. However, it doesn't sharply distinguish from siblings beyond mentioning the dual-path deterministic nature, which requires the reader to understand what 'Story 3.1' and 'gate' context implies.

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 indicates when to use manifest (list operations/risk metadata) vs execute (run one control) but doesn't clarify when to prefer this over gc_tool_call, gc_dispatch, or gc_run — sibling tools that likely also execute operations. No explicit exclusions or alternative naming.

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