Create Treasury Withdrawal Action

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write that is safe to retry. The description adds little beyond that: it does not explain on-chain submission vs. file output, required signing keys, or what the output artifact is. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single functional sentence followed by a neatly formatted argument list. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though the args list duplicates schema information without adding value.

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 seven-parameter, required-everything mutation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It omits how the action is finalized (file, signing, submission), whether deposit amounts depend on protocol parameters, and what the out_file will contain, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to close by trial.

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 seven parameters. The description repeats the same field labels with no added formatting, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Create a governance action to withdraw funds from the treasury.' This distinguishes it from other governance action creators (info, no_confidence, constitution, hard_fork, protocol_params_update, update_committee) by specifying the treasury withdrawal type. It loses the top score only because the name itself already conveys most of this and the description doesn't add scope details like limits or prerequisites.

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 tool versus alternatives in the rich governance action family, nor any mention of prerequisites. The description only states what the tool creates, leaving an agent to infer when treasury withdrawal is the right action.

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