Propose (governance)

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it is forwarded to an operator endpoint, governance is disabled by default, the call may error, it returns a hex proposalId, and it starts a vote rather than mutating settings. These details meaningfully complement readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false without contradicting them.

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 four sentences with purposeful structure: purpose and parameter guidance first, then operational caveats, then return value and side effect. It is slightly longer than the bare minimum, but every sentence contributes information an agent needs before calling the tool.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (hex proposalId), the side effect (starts a vote), the precondition (governance enabled), and the likely error mode. An agent has enough context to decide whether to call this tool and what to do with the result.

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 the baseline is met by the schema alone. The description adds value by specifying the conditional relationship: paramKey and proposedValue are required when scope=emission_param, implying they are unnecessary for protocol_upgrade. It does not enumerate valid paramKey values or formats, but that goes beyond what the schema itself provides.

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 ('Open a protocol governance proposal') and immediately narrows it to two scopes with conditional parameters. It also distinguishes itself from saihm_governance_vote by explaining that it returns a proposalId for voting, and the phrase 'starts a vote rather than changing a setting' removes ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explains when the tool will work (when the operator has governance enabled), what to expect when it won't, and that the returned proposalId is consumed by saihm_governance_vote. It does not explicitly list alternative tools for other operations, but the relationship with the only relevant sibling is clear enough.

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