gate_propose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the proposal is staged, measured, judged, and waits for a person's approval, but it omits permissions, side effects, mutation scope, and what the call returns.

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 single sentence is short but cryptic and not front-loaded with a clear action. Its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication for a 6-parameter tool.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and dense sibling tooling, the description is far from complete. It adds only a high-level approval lifecycle hint and leaves parameters, usage, and behavior unexplained.

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?

There are 6 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Terms like targets, providers, actions, staging, and weapons are left entirely undefined.

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 hints at a proposal that is staged, measured, judged, and approved, but it never states a clear verb+resource (e.g., 'create a gate proposal'). It is too metaphorical and vague to let an agent distinguish it confidently from gate_approve, gate_proposals, or gate_run.

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?

It implies the tool is used when a change needs human approval, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. The many gate siblings make this omission costly.

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