gate_reopen

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that reopened gates 'come back as hard' and frames the operation as a reversible lever, adding meaningful context beyond the schema. However, it does not state effects on related gates, whether reopening can fail, or what happens if the gate is already open.

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 and about 45 words, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. The middle sentence is somewhat philosophical but it earns its place by explaining why the operation exists; there is no filler beyond that.

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 simple 3-parameter mutation, the description gives the key behavioral fact and rationale, while the schema covers cwd and note. It is incomplete on id semantics and postconditions, and without an output schema an agent gets no guidance on what a successful reopen returns.

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 only 67%, and the required 'id' parameter lacks a description that tells the agent which gate it refers to. The prose adds no parameter-level detail; it never mentions id, cwd, or note. With coverage below the high threshold and no compensation in the description, a 2 is appropriate.

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 first sentence, 'Pull back a gate the pair settled,' gives a specific verb and resource and clearly identifies this as the undo counterpart to gate settling. It is not tautological and it differentiates the tool from gate_raise/gate_decide. The phrase 'the pair settled' is somewhat jargon-heavy, so it is not 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 conveys the intended situation: reopen when an auto-settled gate is later found wrong, because auto-settling is only safe due to reversibility. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when not to use it, but the use case is clearly implied.

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