Create Protocol Parameters Update Action

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar for added context is that the description should explain the workflow, e.g. that this constructs an action requiring a deposit and later signing rather than submitting anything. The description adds none of this and merely lists parameters, so it does little beyond structured data.

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 sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the full Args block is largely redundant given 100%-covered schema descriptions and occupies most of the text without adding information. Structure is fine; content efficiency is poor.

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 complex 9-parameter governance action with no output schema and no annotations explaining lifecycle, the description omits critical context: whether it submits or only builds, the role of the deposit/return address, and the relationship between the optional previous-action fields. It is not sufficient for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters. The Args block repeats those descriptions nearly verbatim ('Anchor URL', 'Deposit in lovelace', 'Output path') without adding format, valid ranges, or JSON structure for protocol_parameters_update. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a governance action to update protocol parameters.' An agent can tell it apart by subject from query tools, but it offers no differentiation from the many sibling create actions (create_info, create_constitution, create_hard_fork, create_update_committee, create_treasury_withdrawal). Good but no sibling routing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this action versus the other governance action creators, no prerequisites, and no mention of what must happen after creation (signing/submission). The description only states what it does, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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