gate_raise

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

With no annotations, the description has to carry behavioral weight, and it does convey queued, asynchronous behavior ('queued question rather than a message someone had to be present to catch') and a blocking wait. However, it overgeneralizes by implying every raise waits on a principal, while the schema says a converged conferral can close a soft gate without troubling the principal.

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?

Two sentences, with the purpose statement front-loaded and a concrete example earning the second sentence. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

The tool is complex (11 parameters, a nested conferral object, no output schema, no annotations), and the description alone leaves important operational detail implicit, such as the conferral requirement for soft gates. The schema compensates with rich field-level descriptions, so description plus schema is workable, but the high-level text is not fully complete on its own.

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 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters in detail; the description only adds semantic color to 'kind' by giving examples such as a $40 spend. That matches the baseline 3: the description does not need to re-list parameters but also does not materially deepen their meaning.

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 specifies a concrete action ('raise') and a clear target: decisions the working session must not take alone, with four explicit trigger categories (architectural choice, install, spend, irreversible). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling gate tools such as gate_decide or gate_queue, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives explicit, actionable conditions for use: any architectural, install, spend, or irreversible decision, and it says the session should stop and wait. It does not spell out when not to raise (for example, after a converged conferral) or name an alternative tool, but the trigger context is clear rather than merely implied.

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