set_gate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add one meaningful constraint: updating a gate does not alone satisfy verification; all gates must be PASS/WAIVED. However, it does not disclose whether evidence_ids replaces or appends evidence, authorization requirements, or reversibility, leaving important behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 concise and front-loaded: two short sentences with no filler, and the second sentence earns its place by adding an important constraint. It could be slightly more informative, but structurally it is efficient.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description leaves too much implicit. Valid status values, evidence behavior, and identifier semantics are absent. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but the input context is incomplete.

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. 'Evidence references' hints at evidence_ids, but it does not explain the required status parameter, the roles of slice_id and gate_id, or how evidence_ids interacts with existing evidence. The required parameters remain underdocumented.

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 and resource: 'Update an acceptance gate with evidence references.' It clearly identifies the action and object. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool set_gate_controlled, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use set_gate versus alternatives such as set_gate_controlled or verify_slice. The note that verification still requires all gates PASS/WAIVED is a behavioral caveat, not a usage rule, and provides no help in selecting among siblings.

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