propose_remove_subspace

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: false, which is consistent with the write nature of this action; no contradiction. The description adds useful context that this creates a proposal rather than executing the removal directly, implying a governance flow. However, it does not disclose whether this requires a signed on-chain transaction, a configured wallet, or what happens after the proposal is created — partial transparency, and the readOnlyHint already signals mutation.

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?

Eight words, front-loaded with the action verb, zero filler or repetition of the tool name. It is efficiently structured and 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 minimal readOnlyHint annotation, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and 8 words are thin for a governance-proposal tool with 4 required addresses and a metadata URI. Missing context includes the proposal lifecycle, transaction/signing requirements, and how this tool relates to the other proposal siblings. The bare purpose is clear, but an agent calling this correctly would need more.

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% — all four parameters (ipfsUri, subspaceAddress, mainVotingAddress, spacePluginAddress) have their own descriptions in the input schema. The description itself adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 and resource: 'Propose removing a subspace from a DAO space.' It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like propose_accept_subspace (adding) and propose_remove_editor (removing an editor). It's clear but terse — it doesn't elaborate on what the proposal entails, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tool versus the closely related siblings propose_accept_subspace, propose_remove_editor, or propose_dao_edit. Usage is only implied by the semantics of the name, with no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives named. An agent must infer when this is the right tool among several similar governance-proposal tools.

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