Submit a Forge RFC with a title, problem, proposal, and optional test plan to propose changes that cannot alter constitution or security roots by text or vote.
Create a Forge RFC. Constitution/security roots cannot be removed by simple RFC text or vote.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| problem | Yes | ||
| proposal | Yes | ||
| test_plan | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that constitution/security roots cannot be removed by simple RFC text or vote, which is a meaningful constraint, but it does not explain permissions, side effects, or the RFC lifecycle.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a relevant governance constraint. No wasted wording.
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 four-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits usage context, parameter meaning, permissions, and what happens after creation.
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 0% and the description does not mention any parameter. The property names title, problem, proposal, and test_plan are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic guidance about what belongs in each field.
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 verb and resource: 'Create a Forge RFC.' That is clear enough for an agent to know the core action, but it does not differentiate this tool from any sibling governance or proposal tools.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the word 'Create.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.