league_propose_enact

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the non-obvious blocking mechanic (closing the popup without proposing does NOT clear it) and points to league_status for the required choice. However, it does not describe whether resolutions pass immediately vs enter a vote, cost, or side effects of the choice parameter.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the example, then the critical blocking note, with no wasted sentences. Slightly dense with the parenthetical deferral, but every sentence 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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers purpose and the turn-blocking mechanic well but leaves the valid resolution_type set, choice semantics, and post-proposal flow to inference. Adequate but with clear gaps for a congress action.

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 the description must compensate, and it does partially: it provides an example resolution_type value and flags that a required `choice` may be needed, deferring to league_status(). It still does not enumerate valid resolution_type values or explain what the integer choice represents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Propose enacting a World Congress resolution', with a concrete example value (RESOLUTION_SCIENCES_FUNDING). The word 'enact' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling league_propose_repeal, but the contrast is never made explicit.

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?

Gives clear context for use: it is required to clear ENDTURN_BLOCKING_LEAGUE_CALL_FOR_PROPOSALS and points the agent to league_status() for what is currently proposable. Does not explicitly say when to prefer this over league_propose_repeal, but the enact-vs-repeal framing carries that distinction.

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