gate_add_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important trait — that an add can replace an existing case (upsert by id) — but says nothing about what gets overwritten, whether the replacement is destructive or reversible, or whether approval/validation follows.

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?

A single five-word sentence with no filler and the key behavior (add-or-replace) front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a structured nested object parameter, the definition is far too thin. It never explains the effect of the call, what happens on conflict with an existing case id, or what the caller gets back, all of which the agent must guess.

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% and the nested object field lists its members ({id, weapon, action, metric, rule, about, source}), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the single `case` parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Adds or replaces a case" gives a specific verb pair and a resource, and the "or replaces" wording usefully signals upsert semantics. However, "case" is domain jargon left undefined (the schema reveals it is a rule/weapon/action/metric bundle), and nothing distinguishes it from the many sibling gate_* tools such as gate_cases.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the roughly 50 sibling tools. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is the right entry point versus gate_cases, gate_propose, or gate_set_baseline.

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