satisfy_gate

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action (set to satisfied) but omits side effects (e.g., idempotency, required state of the gate, failure conditions, or whether it's destructive). This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it sacrifices needed detail for brevity, but the dimension focuses on conciseness relative to content, which is well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and a single parameter, the description should cover basic usage context (e.g., what a gate is, what satisfied means, preconditions). It does not, leaving the agent underinformed despite the output schema existing.

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?

The parameter 'gate_name' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not add any explanation of what 'gate_name' refers to, valid values, or constraints. This forces the agent to guess or rely on external knowledge.

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 'Set a supervision gate to satisfied (true)' clearly states the verb ('Set') and the resource ('supervision gate'). It implies a specific action that distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_pipeline_status' or 'skip_stage', but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a gate should be satisfied, prerequisites, or when not to use it). The description is too minimal to provide usage context.

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