execute_proposal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dry-run default and the no-retry-on-timeout behavior, which are useful. However, it doesn't state whether the action is destructive, what happens on illegal proposals, or the nature of the response, leaving 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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the primary purpose. The dry-run and timeout details are secondary but relevant. No redundant information.

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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is under-specified. It doesn't mention how to source proposal_id, what 'still-legal' means, or what the output represents, leaving an agent without enough context to call it 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?

The schema provides no description for proposal_id (coverage 0%), and the tool description does not explain what proposal_id is, how to obtain it, or what format it should be in. This is a critical omission for a single-parameter tool.

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 a specific action: re-read the game and submit a proposal, with a condition that it must be still-legal. This is clear and distinct from typical sibling tools like preflight or get_legal_actions, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The dry-run default and no-retry behavior are mentioned, but there is no statement about when this should be invoked (e.g., after planning) or when to prefer other tools like step_once or autoplay.

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