create_proposal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action and supported options. It does not mention whether the proposal is immediately open for voting, whether it can be edited or withdrawn, what permissions are required, or what the response contains — significant gaps for a state-changing tool.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?

The description is two compact sentences that front-load the core purpose and then briefly expand on key features. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description plus detailed schema is adequate but not complete. It lacks guidance on side effects, return values, or operational context like whether a proposal can be iterated. The tool is straightforward enough to be usable, but gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating that voting types and thresholds are supported, which is already captured in the schema's enum descriptions. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('voting proposal') with context ('for group decision-making'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_proposals, get_proposal, and cast_vote. It also previews key configurable aspects (voting types and thresholds), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use the tool (when creating a proposal) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. It mentions supported voting types and thresholds but gives no guidance on choosing between them or any prerequisites like group membership or permissions.

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