Propose (governance)

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds crucial behavior: the tool is a stub and will return a 'governance unavailable' error. This goes beyond the annotations and sets correct expectations for the agent's action. No contradiction.

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 compact sentences front-load the main purpose and conditional parameters, then immediately note the limitation. No wasted words, and the critical caveat is placed at the end without obscuring the primary intent.

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 the tool's conditional parameters and non-functional status, the description covers every piece an agent needs: which scope is required, what extra parameters are needed for each scope, and the exact failure behavior. It is complete and self-contained.

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 coverage is 100% and paramKey's schema description already mentions 'when scope=emission_param'. However, the description also clarifies that proposedValue is also conditional on emission_param, which the schema does not explicitly state. This adds meaningful conditional logic beyond what is in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('open') and a clear resource ('protocol governance proposal'), and distinguishes its function from the sibling vote tool. It explicitly states the two scopes and the conditional parameters, and even clarifies the current non-functional state, so an agent knows exactly what the tool is meant to do.

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 explicit instructions: set scope to 'emission_param' or 'protocol_upgrade' and, for 'emission_param', also pass paramKey and proposedValue. It also explicitly warns the tool is not enabled and will return an error, effectively telling the agent not to rely on it. This is clear and complete.

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