add_gateway

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) with no idempotency or open-world implications. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it adds to the current diagram, but does not disclose potential side effects, required context (e.g., existing diagram), or behavior when called without a current diagram. Since annotations don't carry detailed behavioral information, the description should have done more.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words, which is good. However, it is extremely short for a tool with five parameters and a nested object, leaving out any useful structural information. It is appropriately compact but borderline under-specified, so it earns a middle score.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, enum gatewayType, nested position object, and no output schema explanation), the description is far too minimal. It doesn't explain the gatewayType choices, the meaning of ownerId and scopeId, or how positioning works. An agent would have to rely entirely on the schema, and even then some context (e.g., relationship to current diagram) 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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter semantics; it doesn't mention gatewayType, name, ownerId, scopeId, or position. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description provides no extra value beyond the schema.

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 (add) and the resource (gateway) and specifies the target (current diagram). It distinguishes from sibling add_* tools by resource type, though it doesn't mention the gatewayType parameter that differentiates gateway kinds. It is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose but lacks a mention of the required type parameter.

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 is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like add_event, add_activity, or add_pool. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions for use. The description simply states the action without any usage context or exclusions.

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