demo__demo_gated_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does add one important trait: this write goes through policy/approval governance, so an agent can expect gating rather than an immediate effect. However it does not disclose what is mutated, whether it is reversible, what approval flow triggers, or what the result looks like.

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?

It is a single short line with no filler, which is structurally fine, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being dense with useful information.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the governance behavior, what the demo mutates, and what an agent gets back. It gestures at policy/approval but leaves the mechanics and the target of the write entirely unspecified.

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%, so both parameters (action, amount) are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema — it does not clarify the valid values for 'action' or what 'amount' governs, leaving '动作名' ambiguous.

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 identifies the tool as a 'governed write action' and states it is a demo of how policy/approval applies to upstream tools, which conveys the general intent. But it never says what resource is being written to or what the action does, unlike siblings such as transfer_money or send_email which name a concrete operation. An agent knows it is a gated demo write, not what it operates on.

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 versus demo__demo_echo or the real write tools like transfer_money. The parenthetical implies it is illustrative, but the description never says to use it only for testing policy/approval flows or when to prefer the production equivalent.

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