add_governance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description usefully reveals the cascading behavior for repos, the direct-link behavior for tasks, and the governance-to-governance prohibition. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether removing the link destroys the reference, whether governance refs can be overridden by re-attaching, or what the return value/response looks like. Adequate but not rich.

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 compact, using a clear opening sentence followed by two focused sentences explaining behavior and constraints. Every sentence earns its place. Could be slightly more efficient by merging context, but it's well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 a mutation with no annotations, zero schema description coverage, and only minimal parameter semantics. An output schema exists (which covers return values). The description covers purpose, the inclusion behavior in task packs, and the cascading/entity constraint. However, for a mutation tool it lacks disclosure about reversibility (remove_governance exists but the behavior isn't connected), overwrite semantics, or any prerequisite conditions. Adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description implies that 'ref' identifies a component/repo/task and 'governance_ref' is the governance to attach, but it doesn't explicitly define either parameter's syntax, format, or allowed entity types. The opening line names the target entity types, which is helpful, but the distinction between the two refs is implicit rather than explicit.

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 states a specific verb ('Attach') and a clear resource ('governance ref to a component/repo/task'). It differentiates from siblings by noting it cannot attach governance to another governance entity, and the sibling remove_governance clearly represents the inverse operation. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives, which would push it to 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 explains when the governance content is included ('in any task pack that touches this entity'), which clarifies the practical effect. It also gives an explicit exclusion ('Cannot attach governance to another governance entity'). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, but the cascade and direct-attach distinction provides useful context for choosing this tool.

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