sage_gov_propose

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the action requires admin role, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details like side effects, irreversibility, or what happens after submission, such as returning a proposal ID or requiring subsequent voting.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second adds a usage condition. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 complexity of governance proposals (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks context on the proposal lifecycle, such as what happens after submission, how to track it, or whether it requires voting. The agent may need to infer from sibling tools, but direct completeness is moderate.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add new information beyond the schema; it merely reiterates the operation types (add, remove, update). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Submit', the resource 'governance proposal', and specifies the actions 'add, remove, or update a validator'. It also mentions the 'admin role' requirement, distinguishing it from other governance tools like sage_gov_vote and sage_gov_status.

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 clearly states that an admin role is required, which guides appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to vote or check status, leaving some inference to the agent.

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