ugf_sui_execute_signed_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions broadcasting and returning tx_digest but does not disclose whether the call is synchronous, if it waits for confirmation, error handling behavior, or any side effects, which are important for a transaction submission tool.

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?

A single concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and return value, with no extraneous information. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 4 parameters are fully described in schema and the return is specified as {tx_digest}, the description provides minimal context. For a complex operation like submitting a signed transaction, additional information on result handling or error cases would improve completeness, but it meets the baseline.

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% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, earning a baseline of 3.

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 (broadcast), the object (dual-signed Sui transaction block), and the return value ({tx_digest}), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ugf_sui_wait_sponsor_bytes which likely prepare the transaction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., having user_sig and sponsor_sig) or whether it should be called after ugf_sui_wait_sponsor_bytes. The description does not help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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