create_proposal

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the 'SR only' authorization constraint, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether this creates an on-chain transaction, requires signing/broadcasting, or what side effects may occur beyond the openWorldHint.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the action and scope, the second instructs on required input. No wasted wording, perfectly sized.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify what the tool returns or whether it broadcasts a transaction. It doesn't. For a governance proposal creation (likely an on-chain operation), the lack of side-effect and return-value information is a significant gap, especially with openWorldHint=true.

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 100%; the parameters property includes a clear description with an example. The tool description's second sentence restates the schema but adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Create a new network governance proposal (SR only)' with a specific verb, resource, and scope restriction. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_proposal, delete_proposal, and list_proposals by focusing on creation and parameter changes.

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 clear context (used for creating governance proposals with parameter changes) and an explicit authorization requirement (SR only). It doesn't name alternative tools, but the verb 'create' plus the proposal context implicitly differentiate it from approval/deletion/list tools.

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