legion_propose_story

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: the u441 revert until the member threshold, the entire-weight lock held until resolution, the fact the lock is never spent and releases on every outcome, local pre-flight refusal with the specific blocker, and the verbatim on-chain storage. This is unusually complete disclosure for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the payoff and the activation blocker, then layered detail in short paragraphs. The closing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is tangential promotion rather than tool guidance and costs a point, but nothing else is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers failure modes, locking, and storage thoroughly — but never says what a successful call returns (proposal id, tx hash, event). For a transaction-submitting tool that is the one meaningful omission.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real semantics on top by noting the contract stores link/title/description verbatim and never reads the inscription, implying validation is cosmetic and unreadable content still passes. That materially changes how an agent should fill these fields.

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 and resource — 'Open a vote on one inscribed piece' — and immediately adds the proposer-exclusive payout, which is what separates this from legion_vote / legion_inscribe_story. An agent can tell what it creates and who benefits without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions: the legion must be ACTIVATED (check legion_status), one live proposal per principal, and an unlocked wallet is required. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead if...' routing against the very similar atstake_legion_propose sibling, which keeps it below a 5.

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