Create a DAO governance proposal to remove an editor from a space. Supply the MainVoting plugin address, editor address, and IPFS metadata URI to initiate the removal.
Propose removing an editor from a DAO space
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ipfsUri | Yes | ipfs:// metadata URI for the proposal | |
| editorAddress | Yes | 0x address of the editor to remove | |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation. The description adds the useful behavioral trait that the tool creates a proposal rather than directly removing an editor, but it discloses nothing about the proposal lifecycle, voting requirements, permissions, or side effects. Consistent with annotations but thin.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The action verb ('Propose') leads immediately, followed by the object and scope ('an editor from a DAO space'). Every word earns its place.
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?
With no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description carries the burden of explaining the workflow, but it omits what the call returns (e.g., proposal ID), what happens after the proposal is created (voting), and any prerequisites such as wallet setup or DAO membership. It is minimally viable for a 3-parameter mutation tool but leaves significant gaps.
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%, with each parameter (mainVotingAddress, editorAddress, ipfsUri) already documented with format hints such as '0x address' and 'ipfs:// metadata URI'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb+resource ('Propose removing an editor from a DAO space') that cleanly distinguishes the tool from siblings like propose_accept_editor, propose_remove_subspace, and propose_dao_edit. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.
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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many proposal siblings (propose_accept_editor, propose_remove_subspace, propose_accept_subspace, propose_dao_edit), and names no alternatives or exclusions. The 'propose' verb only weakly implies this is the proposal-creation path rather than a direct removal, with no stated prerequisites or workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.