sign_amendment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the SDK derives and signs the preimage, MCP never sees or builds signed bytes, and amendments are ephemeral (lost on restart, no external trust). This is valuable transparency beyond the bare action, clarifying side effects and the trust model.

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 sentences, no filler. The primary action is stated upfront, followed by essential process and trust caveats. Every clause adds value without redundancy.

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 description lacks essential context for a mutation tool: it does not describe the return value (no output schema), error conditions (e.g., amendment not found), or prerequisites beyond the amendment being proposed. The trust model note is helpful but does not fill the gaps needed for reliable invocation.

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 only 25% (only signer_role has a description). The description does not explain amendment_id, signer_private_key, or signer_public_key. It contextually implies these relate to signing, but offers no explicit semantics, formats, or relationships. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but barely does.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add a signature to a proposed amendment.' It includes a specific verb (add), resource (signature to amendment), and adds process context (SDK derives and signs). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_approval_signature or sign_charter, the target ('proposed amendment') is unambiguous enough for an agent to grasp its scope.

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 usage (for signing a proposed amendment) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, nor does it explain the prerequisite that an amendment must already be proposed. The caution about session state is useful but not about tool selection.

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