aps_capability_evaluate_authority

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states this is a request for permit/deny but does not disclose side effects, whether it mutates state, consumes the token, is idempotent, or has security implications. The mention of a 'revealed authority-token preimage' hints at sensitivity but leaves out consequences.

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 compact: two sentences plus search keywords. Every sentence adds protocol context. The jargon (v0.1, M2, sink) is dense but purposeful for the domain. The search keywords are a minor extra but do not hurt.

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 complexity (7 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description explains the overall purpose and the flow but omits expected return format (permit/deny response structure) and any prerequisites beyond M1. It is adequate for a protocol-literate developer but not self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context by mapping 'sink's M1' to challenge, 'delegation chain' to delegation_chain, and 'authority-token preimage' to authority_token, but it does not explain the less-covered fields like freshness_beacon or the nested token_preimage/merkle_proof semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a capability-token authority evaluation request (M2) and explains the protocol flow: the subject signs a request carrying M1, delegation chain, and token preimage, which the gateway consumes to permit/deny. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aps_capability_issue_challenge (M1) and aps_capability_mint_receipt.

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 provides clear context: it is the M2 step after receiving the sink's M1, and it is used to request an authority decision. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the protocol framing and sibling names imply a specific place in the capability-token flow.

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