Propose governed action

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it is a dry-run proposal and does not approve, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the proposal is stored), the request structure, or error behavior, leaving gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, each carrying essential information: the action being performed and its non-approving nature. No wasted words, and key details are front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with one free-form object parameter and no output schema, the description should explain the expected structure of the request and the response. It only covers the high-level purpose and dry-run behavior, leaving the agent under-informed about how to use the input correctly.

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 only parameter 'request' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain what the request object should contain. It merely mentions 'governed action proposal,' providing minimal guidance for the agent to construct a valid request.

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 uses a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('governed action proposal'), explicitly names the endpoint, and clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it does not approve the action, which contrasts with igrid_decide_action.

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?

It states the role ('WRITE role') and that it is a dry-run proposal, implying use for submission without approval. However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this versus alternative tools like igrid_decide_action, leaving some inference needed.

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