vorion_execute_governed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the atomic operation, the conditional execution, the recording of behavioral signals, and the logging of proof. It also describes the return value (governance trail) including gate decision, execution result, trust delta, and proof hash.

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 three sentences, front-loads the core function ('Gate + execute + log in one atomic call'), and every sentence adds value: the flow, the return, and the usage recommendation. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return value comprehensively. It covers the full operation flow, atomicity, and the recommended usage. The parameter details are already in the schema, and the description provides sufficient context for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Risk level', 'Action to perform'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Gate + execute + log in one atomic call.' It specifies the exact steps (check trust, execute if allowed, record signal, log proof) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by combining their functions. This is a specific, well-defined 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 explicitly says 'This is the recommended way to run governed tool calls' and states it 'replaces manual check-then-execute patterns,' giving clear guidance on when to use it and positioning it against manual alternatives. This provides strong usage context.

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