Remove Health Gate Waiver

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: it deletes the stored waiver, is a no-op if none exists, and causes create_tailoring_session to return 409 again. That downstream effect is valuable context not present in the annotations.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the counterpart tool is described last as supporting context. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence contributes.

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 small mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, with 0% parameter coverage and an unexplained enum, an agent cannot confidently supply kind or key, leaving a real completeness gap.

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% across three required parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains none of them. "For this gate" loosely implies gate_id, but kind (base vs application) and key are left completely undefined, and the enum's two values are nowhere explained.

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 ("Remove a health-gate waiver") and explicitly names its counterpart tool, waive_health_gate, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema. The effect (restore the gate's protection) is unambiguous.

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 the situation that motivates the call: it undoes a prior bypass so the gate blocks create_tailoring_session again, and it identifies waive_health_gate as the reverse operation. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not wording, but the context is clear enough to select the tool.

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