add_quality_gate

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

The description discloses key behavior: blocking subsequent tasks until evaluation passes. However, without annotations, it omits details on side effects, error handling, or required permissions. The criteria format is mentioned but not fully validated.

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 concise sentences front-load the main purpose and add necessary detail. No redundant information; every word contributes.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, key parameters, and behavior. It lacks error conditions or return information but is sufficient for basic usage.

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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the role of 'after_order' (position to block after) and explaining 'criteria' as JSON check rules, going beyond schema.

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 clearly states the tool adds a quality gate to a pipeline and explains its blocking behavior. It implicitly distinguishes from evaluation tools like evaluate_quality_gate, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as add_task_to_pipeline.

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?

The description explains when to use (to block subsequent tasks after a point) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or prerequisites like pipeline existence. No alternatives are mentioned.

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