authorize_entry

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the call physically opens a turnstile, logs an access event, requires prior authentication, or what the decision response looks like — all critical for an access-control mutation. 'Autoriza ou nega' implies a decision but not its side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though almost too terse for the complexity of the operation.

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 6 parameters (4 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the decision outcome and side effects. Instead it gives one sentence, leaving the agent without enough to call the tool confidently or interpret its result.

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%, with clear enum labels (device, personType, climateId) and descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 a specific action and outcome: authorizing or denying a user's access to the gym. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling authenticate_member, which an agent could easily confuse with it, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus authenticate_member or get_member_profile, no prerequisites, and no statement of what the caller is expected to supply as a pre-check. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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