prepare_safe_tx_propose

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

Annotations indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds important context: it explains the hash computation, the need for subsequent steps, and flags DELEGATECALL as high-risk. It does not contradict annotations and provides value beyond them.

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 moderately long but well-structured, starting with purpose and then explaining details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing clarity.

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 lacking an output schema, the description explains the return type (UnsignedTx for approveHash) and the required subsequent steps (broadcast, submit_safe_tx_signature). It covers the tool's role in a multi-step process well, though it omits error conditions or edge cases.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It explains the inner parameter's two forms (handle vs raw to/value/data), the operation default and risk, and implies nonceOverride's purpose. However, it does not detail signer, safeAddress, or chain beyond what is obvious from names.

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 states it proposes a Safe multisig transaction, distinguishes from siblings by detailing the specific flow (on-chain approveHash vs off-chain), and mentions related steps like submit_safe_tx_signature. It also contrasts with off-chain signing, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear usage context: recommends using a handle from prepare_*, describes the flow from this tool to broadcast to submit_safe_tx_signature, warns about DELEGATECALL risk, and notes the on-chain flow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the other Safe tx tools (approve, execute) or specify when not to use this tool.

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