Propose adding a new editor to a DAO space by submitting the editor's address, voting contract, and metadata URI, enabling community governance to approve the change.
Propose adding a new editor to a DAO space
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ipfsUri | Yes | ipfs:// metadata URI for the proposal | |
| editorAddress | Yes | 0x address of the editor to add | |
| mainVotingAddress | Yes | 0x address of the MainVoting plugin contract |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description carries most of the behavioral burden. 'Propose' conveys that the tool creates a proposal rather than directly modifying state, but it does not disclose on-chain or transaction requirements, wallet signing, or the governance workflow.
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?
One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It loses a point because it omits useful adjacent context like alternatives or side effects that could be added compactly.
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?
Despite full parameter documentation, the tool has no output schema and minimal annotations. The description does not tell an agent what the call returns, whether it requires a connected wallet or signed transaction, or how it fits into the DAO proposal flow among siblings like vote_on_proposal.
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 parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond aligning 'adding an editor' with editorAddress, so the baseline 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 names the action ('Propose adding') and the resource ('a new editor to a DAO space'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like propose_remove_editor and propose_accept_subspace, which target different operations or resources.
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?
When to use it is implied: use it to add an editor through a proposal. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.