Propose (governance)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'submit' is consistent. However, it adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether a voting period starts, permissions needed, or outcome feedback). Given annotations cover basics, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and subject. No wasted words; each sentence adds essential 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description could explain the result of a submission (e.g., 'creates a proposal and initiates voting'). It covers the core purpose and constraints well, but lacks return value details. Good overall.

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%, so description need not add much. It reiterates the scope enum values, but provides no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is correct.

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 clearly states the action ('submit a gSAIHM governance proposal'), specifies the resource and scope constraints ('Scope MUST be emission_param or protocol_upgrade'), and explicitly distinguishes the tool from sibling saihm_governance_vote.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use this to open a protocol governance vote') and mandates the scope values. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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