agora_propose_self_improvement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a data boundary ('AGORA receives authorized benchmark/result metadata, not the local workspace'), which is real added context. However it says nothing about permissions, what happens after the proposal is created (auto-applied vs. reviewed), or any side effects of this mutation with 6 required fields.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence earns its place as an input-boundary constraint, though it could be folded more explicitly into usage guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and six undocumented required parameters, the description leaves the agent without enough to fill the schema correctly or understand the review/lifecycle around the proposal.

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% across 7 parameters, so the schema provides no semantics at all. The description names none of them (observation, hypothesis, proposed_change, expected_result, risk, rollback, owner_policy) and gives no hint about expected content, format, or the meaning of owner_policy's 'manual' default.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create an ImprovementProposal for this agent.' The resource is a domain-specific artifact type, so the agent can tell this is not a debate, mission, or research challenge. It stops short of naming which sibling (e.g., agora_propose_research_challenge, agora_propose_game_module) it is not, so it does not fully differentiate.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative tool for proposal-like actions despite several 'propose_*' siblings. The second sentence constrains inputs (benchmark/result metadata, not local workspace) but that is a data-scope note, not selection guidance.

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