Set a gate status enforcing integrity rules: provide evidence for PASS, approved override for WAIVED.
Set a gate with v0.1.1 integrity rules: PASS needs evidence; WAIVED needs approved override.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| gate_id | Yes | ||
| actor_id | Yes | ||
| slice_id | Yes | ||
| approval_id | No | ||
| evidence_ids | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly discloses the core integrity enforcement: PASS cannot be set without evidence and WAIVED cannot be set without an approved override. It does not describe failure modes on rule violations or actor permission requirements, but the most important behavioral rule is stated.
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 a single compact sentence with the key rule front-loaded: set a gate, then the integrity conditions. Every word contributes to the agent's decision-making, with no filler or repetition.
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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and a sibling raw setter set_gate, the description is too thin. It does not mention valid statuses beyond the two named ones, how to satisfy the evidence/override requirements through related tools, or what happens when the integrity rules are violated. The presence of an output schema helps but does not fill these 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 the six parameters. It adds meaning to status ('PASS', 'WAIVED') and indirectly to evidence_ids and approval_id, but it leaves slice_id, gate_id, and actor_id entirely unexplained. This is only partial compensation for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 ('Set a gate') and adds a clear differentiator: 'v0.1.1 integrity rules' distinguishes this controlled variant from the sibling set_gate. It also names the two key behaviors that define the tool's purpose.
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 implicit usage preconditions: PASS requires evidence and WAIVED requires an approved override. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over set_gate or how the override/evidence workflow relates to siblings like approve_override or submit_evidence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.