dao_update_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'signs and broadcasts an on-chain transaction' (indicating a mutation requiring authentication) and explains how to remove a member (set weight to 0). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like gas costs, irreversibility, or transaction failures.

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, each serving a purpose. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by key behavioral notes and a reference to sibling tools. No wasted words.

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 covers purpose, usage context, parameter options, and admin requirement. It doesn't specify the return value (e.g., transaction hash) but given no output schema, this is acceptable. Could elaborate on on-chain consequences, but still reasonably complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'dao' and 'group_id' are alternatives and that setting weight to '0' removes a member, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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, remove, or change voting weights of DAO members.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (DAO members), and it distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives like dao_list_members and create_dao.

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 tells when to use the tool ('when you need to add, remove, or change voting weights') and provides alternatives ('See also: dao_list_members, create_dao'). It also includes a prerequisite ('The caller must be the group admin').

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