gate_decide_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses non-atomicity ("Each decision applies independently"), per-item reporting ("is reported separately"), and partial-failure acceptance ("nine of eleven is a normal outcome, one bad id must not throw away eight good answers"). This is exactly the behavioral trait an agent cannot guess from the schema.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and zero redundancy with the schema: one sentence for what the tool does, two for the critical behavioral semantics. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderately complex batch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the when, the what, and the failure semantics that matter most for safe invocation. The main residual gap is the return shape — "reported separately" hints at per-decision results but no response format is given.

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 coverage is 50%: cwd and note are already well documented in the schema, while answers, id, and decision are not. The description compensates partially by explaining that answers are processed independently and that a bad id is tolerated, but it never defines what an id refers to in the question-round context — that gap is left to inference from sibling tools.

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?

"Answer several gates at once" states a specific verb, resource, and scope, making the batch behavior unmistakable. The framing differentiates it from the singular sibling gate_decide without needing to open either schema, and "after a question round" anchors it in the workflow.

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 implies its usage context — batch decisions after a question round — but never explicitly contrasts it with gate_decide for single gates or states exclusions. An agent must infer the single-vs-batch routing from the tool name and sibling list rather than from explicit guidance.

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