gate_intention

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: this is a precondition gate whose approval produces a cryptographic HMAC token, and it returns a verdict plus risk evaluation. It stops short of saying what a rejection looks like to the caller or whether the token has a lifetime/one-time-use constraint, so it is not fully transparent.

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 sentences, roughly fifty words, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause and no filler. The return-value sentence earns its place because no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately (verdict, risk evaluation, HMAC token). Given a five-parameter nested schema and a gating role in a behavior-dispatch pipeline, it could say more about rejection handling and token use, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so all five parameters (project, state_pack, intention_id, context_goal_id, proposed_action and its nested fields) are already documented structurally. The description references the intention and proposed action conceptually but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 ('Evaluate an intention before dispatching to behavior-mcp') plus the concrete output ('issue a cryptographic HMAC dispatch token if approved'). It also explicitly names the sibling it is not, manage_intentions, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use gate_intention instead of manage_intentions when verifying precondition safety and issuing execution authorization rather than tracking intention state.' This names the alternative and the condition that selects it, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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