dao_submit_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description explains that the tool signs and broadcasts an on-chain transaction, implying a write operation. It also mentions the return of a proposal ID. Missing details on failure handling, gas costs, or reversibility, but adequate for a creation 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?

Five sentences, all essential, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, key parameters, return value, and sibling tools. It lacks details on potential errors or transaction fees, but is sufficient for most use cases.

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?

The description adds significant value over the schema by explaining that 'dao' and 'group_policy_address' are alternatives, and that 'exec_try' attempts immediate execution. Also notes that the proposer is automatically set. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 creates a text governance proposal for DAO voting, signs and broadcasts an on-chain transaction, and returns the proposal ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning alternatives like dao_list_proposals, dao_vote, dao_exec.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need to create a text governance proposal' and notes that the proposer is auto-set. It lists optional parameters and alternatives, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or exclusions.

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