Approve or reject a pending gate in a design thinking session, with a required reason for rejection.
Approve or reject the pending gate (rejection requires a reason).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| reason | No | ||
| resolution | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that rejecting requires a reason, which is a useful non-schema constraint, and the approve/reject wording makes it clear this changes state. However, it does not describe side effects, irreversibility, or what happens to the session after resolution.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the action, the target, and the critical rejection-reason rule.
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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves the meaning of the required 'name' parameter ambiguous and does not explain what happens after the gate is resolved, which an agent would need to safely invoke the tool in a session workflow.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that rejection requires a reason, but it does not explain what 'name' refers to or how it should be supplied. 'resolution' is understandable from the enum, yet two of the three parameters remain under-specified.
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 action ('Approve or reject') and the resource ('the pending gate'), and the resolution enum makes the two possible outcomes explicit. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools, none of which mention gates, though the term 'gate' is left somewhat domain-specific.
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?
Use when a gate is pending is implied by 'the pending gate', but the description does not explicitly explain when this tool should be chosen over alternatives or when it should not be used. There is no mention of prerequisites or workflow position.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.