sage_gov_propose

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the admin role requirement but does not describe side effects, irreversibility, fees, or failure modes. For a mutation tool that submits proposals, more behavioral context is expected.

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?

The description is three sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose, then explains operation distinctions, and ends with the prerequisite. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basics but lacks details on proposal lifecycle, scope object structure (beyond 'guided'), and post-submission behavior. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 value by explaining that validator-set operations use scalar fields and scope_action uses a guided scope object, which helps agents understand parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. This justifies a score of 4.

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 'Submit a governance proposal.' It distinguishes between two operation families (validator-set ops with scalar fields, scope_action with guided scope object) and mentions the admin role requirement, which is specific and helps differentiate from sibling tools like sage_gov_vote.

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 provides implicit guidance by differentiating operation types and stating the admin role prerequisite, but it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions relative to alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given.

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