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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It states the tool builds an 'unsigned' proposal, implying no on-chain execution or state change, and restricts usage to m-of-n multisigs. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements (e.g., proposer must be a member) or potential side effects like temporary storage.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose and operation-specific parameter requirements. Every sentence contributes necessary information, with no redundancy or filler. The structure is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 description covers input requirements well but omits what the tool returns (the unsigned proposal format). With no output schema, the agent has no clue about the return structure. It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., multisig must exist) or error conditions. For a build tool that likely returns a transaction, this is a noticeable gap.

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?

The description adds value beyond the input schema by explaining how each parameter is used conditionally per operation (e.g., 'op=add-member needs member + optional permissions'). The schema provides basic descriptions and patterns, but the description clarifies dependencies among 7 parameters. Coverage is 57%, but the description compensates for the missing context on how parameters interact.

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 it builds an unsigned config-change proposal, specifies the three operations (add-member, remove-member, change-threshold), and distinguishes from single-config-authority multisigs. The verb 'build' and resource 'config-change proposal' are specific, and the sibling tools include other multisig actions, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 notes that the tool only works on m-of-n multisigs (not single config authority), which guides the agent on when it is applicable. It also outlines required parameters per operation, but does not directly compare with sibling tools like solknife_multisig_propose_build for general proposals, missing a clear 'when-to-use' vs 'when-not-to'.

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