product_manager_resolve_product_decision

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a verdict and that PASS requires both assessments. With no annotations, it carries the full burden, but does not mention potential side effects or whether it is read-only. However, the behavioral logic is sufficiently clear for the agent to understand the outcome.

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 efficient with 4 sentences that front-load the purpose and explain outcomes. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter. No fluff, and structure is logical.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and verdicts, but lacks details about the return format, error handling, and the fact that only 'description' is required in the schema while the text implies value and viability assessments are mandatory for a valid response. This creates a slight inconsistency.

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 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds context that value and viability assessments are needed for PASS, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the parameter descriptions. It reinforces the schema but does not compensate for any gaps.

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's purpose: 'The PM gate' that returns a verdict (PASS, BLOCK, ADVISORY) based on supply of value and viability assessments. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on resolving a decision with specific outcomes.

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 it: when you have a proposal and need to assess value and viability to get a verdict. It also clarifies that PASS is not automatic and requires both assessments, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it.

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