gates_abandon

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

The description adds real state semantics beyond what annotations state: an abandoned gate is counted as resolved yet remains visible in reports. That tells the agent the downstream effect of the write, which annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) do not convey. It stops short of saying whether abandonment is reversible, whether re-abandoning is an error, or that the authority_file parameter is an HTTP-only authorization token.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler clauses. The word "honest" is repeated in both sentences, a minor redundancy, but nothing is bloated.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and state effect but omits error/precondition behavior and the authorization flow implied by authority_file. The schema descriptions fill much of the gap, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 83%, so file, reason, and gate_id are already documented well. The description reinforces that exactly one gate_id is targeted in a file and that the reason should be honest, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 fits when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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 gives a specific verb and object: record an ABANDON line for one gate in a ledger file, naming the exact artifact it writes to. It also distinguishes the intended behavior from the anti-pattern of silently dropping a gate, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool for contrast.

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 supplies a use case ("use instead of silently dropping a gate"), which implies the situation: a gate that cannot be met should be recorded, not deleted. There is no guidance on preconditions (gate must exist and be unresolved), no exclusion, and no pointer to sibling tools like gates_status or gates_report.

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