ugf_sol_submit_user_sig

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, required prior steps, or error conditions. The user_sig parameter description in schema adds some context, but overall insufficient.

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, no wasted words, front-loaded with key verb and resource. Perfectly concise.

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 2-param submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It should explain what UGF does with the signature, possible outcomes, and context of the paired tool.

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 50% (only user_sig has description). The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema; 'digest' remains unexplained, and user_sig description is already in 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Submit', resource 'Solana user signature', target 'UGF', and points to sibling tool for pairing. However, it does not explain what the submission accomplishes or the subsequent behavior.

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?

Explicitly mentions pairing with 'ugf_sol_wait_user_sig_message', which gives some context, but lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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