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 adds context by noting that the server detects vault vs config and returns executeKind, and that computeUnitLimit can raise CU cap. However, it lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by actionable guidance, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions the return of executeKind but does not detail the full output structure. For a build tool in a multisig workflow, it covers the key inputs and workflow step. It is fairly complete but could be enhanced with more about the returned transaction format.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining that computeUnitLimit optionally raises the CU cap for heavy inner transactions (not described in schema) and clarifies that transactionIndex should come from /api/multisig/state. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool builds an unsigned execute transaction for an approved proposal at a given transactionIndex. It specifies the verb (build), resource (unsigned execute tx), and constraint (APPROVED proposal), and distinguishes from sibling tools like solknife_multisig_execute_execute.

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 tells the agent to pass the result to execute.execute, indicating the next step in the workflow. It also mentions the optional computeUnitLimit for heavy transactions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives beyond the implied build/execute pattern.

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