Create No Confidence Action

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

Annotations cover the behavioral profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), lowering the bar. The description adds no context beyond the parameter list about deposit handling, output file behavior, or the significance of the optional prev_governance_action fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, then a clean Args list. No wasted words, though the parameter repetition is redundant with the schema.

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 governance action creation tool with no output schema, the description conveys what it does and the required inputs but omits critical context like deposit minimums, output file purpose, and how the optional previous action fields are used.

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 all seven parameters are documented in the schema. The description merely repeats the schema descriptions verbatim in an Args block, adding no extra semantic value.

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 ('Create') and resource ('motion of no confidence in the current constitutional committee'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling governance action creators like create_info, create_constitution, create_hard_fork, etc.

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?

No guidance on when to use this over sibling governance action tools or prerequisites for submitting a no-confidence motion. The description only lists parameters.

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