gate_decide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key side effect ('unblocking the session'), but it does not mention whether the decision is reversible, what happens to the gate record, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. For a mutating tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 one succinct sentence with no filler. The core action and consequence are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a broad sibling set, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the meaning of 'id', 'note', or 'cwd', nor does it describe return behavior or edge cases like non-pending gates. The sentence conveys intent but not enough to confidently invoke the tool in varied situations.

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 only 25%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. It implies that 'id' identifies a pending gate and that 'decision' aligns with approve/reject, but the enum already covers that. The 'note' and 'cwd' parameters remain unexplained by both schema and description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Approve or reject') with a clear resource ('a pending gate') and states the consequence ('unblocking the session that raised it'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gate_list, gate_raise, and even gate_decide_batch by focusing on a single pending gate decision.

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 context of use is implied: when a gate is pending and a session is blocked awaiting a decision. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives such as gate_decide_batch, gate_reopen, or gate_reconcile.

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