gate_approve

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: approval requires human authorization and is not an automatable write. It omits what the approval actually changes (does it unlock a gate, freeze a proposal, notify anyone?) and whether the action is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. But the brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a mutation tool with two required parameters.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool whose side effects, post-conditions, and permission requirements are all absent. For an approval action in a gated workflow, an agent lacks nearly everything needed to invoke it responsibly.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. 'proposal' is never explained (identifier, name, or ID?) and 'approved_by' adds nothing beyond the schema's own 'who approved, in their words'.

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 ('Marks a passed proposal approved') plus a precondition ('passed'), which is more than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as gate_verdict or gate_propose, which an agent must choose between in this crowded gate_* family.

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?

'Only on a person's word' implies the trigger condition — a human has authorized approval — but never states when to call this versus gate_verdict or gate_proposals, nor any exclusion or ordering requirement. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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