Sign Charter Amendment

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive local mutation. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the SDK derives the preimage and MCP never handles signed bytes, and amendments are process-local, lost on restart, and carry no external trust. It stops short of saying what happens when a signature is added twice (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or what errors occur.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the security model, then the state caveat. Every sentence carries information and none is padding, though the density is high for a short description.

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 4-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trust model, and persistence semantics but leaves parameter formats, error behavior, and role/key prerequisites unaddressed. It is adequate on the behavioral axis and thin on the operational one.

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 only 25% – only signer_role is documented. The description implies amendment_id refers to the proposed amendment but adds no meaning for signer_public_key, signer_private_key, or their expected formats, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Add a signature to a proposed amendment,' which is distinguishable from the related propose_amendment and verify_amendment siblings. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with sign_charter or add_approval_signature, which are the closest-looking siblings, so differentiation requires inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sign_charter or add_approval_signature, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., that a proposed amendment must exist, or what signer_role values are valid). The description explains the mechanism but never the conditions for invocation.

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