validate_human_greenlight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: it "records the caller's report of explicit director sign-off" rather than verifying sign-off itself, which tells the agent this is attestation capture. It does not say what happens when a boolean is false (gate blocked, error raised, partial pass) or whether recorded results are idempotent.

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?

Three short lines with the gate identity front-loaded and the downstream consequence in the second sentence. Every clause carries information; slightly tighter phrasing could fold the two sentences together, but there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered by structured data. For a 7-required-boolean gate validator, the description supplies the missing pieces: which gate it is, that it captures rather than verifies sign-off, and what it gates. Ample at this complexity level.

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 for 7 undocumented booleans. It partially does by grouping them as "4 human review axes" plus "explicit director sign-off," but it never enumerates which parameters map to which axis, and exhibition_specs_met and surgical_orders_resolved are never mentioned at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Execute the Gate 7 (Human Greenlight Gate) review" and names the gate explicitly. It also states the downstream effect (permitting final export or Seedance generation). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling validate_gate, which handles generic gate validation, 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?

The phrase "before permitting final export or Seedance generation" implies the workflow position where this tool belongs. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of validate_gate as the alternative for non-human gates, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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