submit_safe_tx_signature

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

The description reveals important behaviors beyond annotations: on-chain verification before posting, auto-detection of proposeTransaction vs confirmTransaction, and return of a Safe UI deep-link. It adds depth to the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the key action and context. While slightly long, each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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?

The description covers the sequence, preconditions, and return value, but leaves gaps: parameter meanings are unclear, especially the absence of a signature parameter. The relationship with siblings is partially explained but could be more precise. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, more detail on parameters is needed.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description fails to explain the role of each parameter. Notably, the 'signature' is not a parameter, while the tool claims to 'post the signature.' The description does not clarify how the signature is obtained or what the signer, safeAddress, chain, and safeTxHash represent in this context.

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 the tool's purpose: after the on-chain approveHash transaction is mined, post the signature to the Safe Transaction Service. It specifies the action and distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_safe_tx_* by detailing the follow-up step and auto-detection behavior.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use after the approveHash tx is mined. It also describes preconditions (on-chain approval must exist) and refusal behavior. While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the context clearly indicates it is a post-approval step.

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