Propose Charter Amendment

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that session state is non-authoritative, that amendments are lost on restart, and that they carry no external trust. It also explains the SDK derives the signing preimage and produces the signature. Missing only the permission/auth requirements and the post-proposal lifecycle.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action and replacement-semantics caveat front-loaded, followed by the trust/ephemerality note. No 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 mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description adequately covers ephemerality, trust posture, and replacement semantics. It leaves open what the proposal returns and whether approval is required, which are minor gaps given the annotation coverage.

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 67%, so several params (proposer_public_key, proposer_private_key, effective_at) lack descriptions. The description reinforces 'full replacement, not a patch' for proposed_charter (already in the schema) and implies the private key drives signing, but adds little new per-parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 holds.

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?

States a specific verb ('Propose') and resource ('an amendment to a charter'), and adds that it supplies a full CharterCore replacement rather than a patch. It does not explicitly name the adjacent siblings (sign_amendment, verify_amendment, create_charter), so differentiation must be inferred from 'produces the proposer signature'.

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 versus sign_amendment, verify_amendment, or create_charter, and no stated prerequisites for a multi-signature approval flow. The description explains what happens internally but not when an agent should choose this tool.

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