league_propose_repeal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two useful behavioral facts: the target must be an 'active' resolution, and valid candidates come from proposable_repeal. It omits whether the proposal needs votes to pass, whether it costs anything, and what happens on success, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation-style tool.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the pointer to the data source trailing. No filler or repetition.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should tell the agent more about the surrounding flow, such as the voting step that follows or the effect of repeal. The pointer to league_status covers input sourcing, but the lifecycle after proposing is left unclear.

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% for the single required resolution_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so partially by naming the field in league_status() where valid ids live, but adds no type, format, or range detail beyond the schema's integer declaration.

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 repealing an active World Congress resolution.' The verb 'repeal' naturally contrasts with the sibling league_propose_enact, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either schema. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Points the agent to league_status()'s proposable_repeal field as the source of valid targets, which is genuine usage guidance for input selection. However, it gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to league_propose_enact or league_cast_votes, nor any prerequisites about the World Congress state.

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