Create Info Governance Action

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the action has 'no on-chain effect' and the tool emits a local 'action file' via out_file rather than submitting to chain, which an agent would otherwise not know from the annotations alone.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the five-line Args block duplicates the schema's own descriptions word-for-word at 100% coverage, adding length without new information. Structure is fine; the redundancy is the problem.

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?

For a creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, all required inputs, and the fact that output lands in a file, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It stops short of covering prerequisites like deposit funding or anchor hosting requirements.

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 every parameter's meaning is already documented in the schema, and the Args block in the description restates those same definitions verbatim without adding formatting, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 ('Create an informational governance action') and immediately qualifies the scope with 'no on-chain effect, used for signaling,' which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling create_no_confidence, create_constitution, and create_hard_fork tools that all share the same 'create governance action' phrasing.

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 parenthetical 'no on-chain effect, used for signaling' implies the appropriate use case, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over the other action-create siblings or what prerequisites (funds, signing keys, anchor hosting) are required. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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