submit_safe_tx_signature

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

With annotations already indicating destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: on-chain verification before posting, auto-detection of propose vs confirm endpoints, and return of a deep link. No contradiction.

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 informative, covering prerequisites, logic, and output. It is not overly verbose; every sentence adds value. Slightly long but justified by complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and reliance on prior steps, the description provides good workflow context. No output schema exists, but the return value (deep-link) is described. Could mention error states or idempotency behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains signer and safeTxHash in context (on-chain verification) but does not explicitly define each parameter. This partially compensates but could be more explicit.

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: posting a signature to Safe Transaction Service after an on-chain approveHash tx is mined. It specifies prerequisites and auto-detection logic, distinguishing it from sibling tools like prepare_safe_tx_propose or prepare_safe_tx_execute.

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 explicitly says when to use (after on-chain approveHash tx mined) and implies when not (if approval doesn't exist), referencing prior steps and conditions. It provides clear context for usage without needing to name alternatives.

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