aps_construct_attribution_primitive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states that the tool builds and signs an object, names the axes, and says it returns the complete signed object—implying a pure construction operation with no hidden persistence. It does not disclose potential failure modes or validation requirements, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the function and names the axes, the second states the return value. There is no redundancy or filler, and the most critical information is 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?

The tool has 5 parameters with nested schemas and no output schema. The description adequately communicates the overall scope, axes names, and return value, which is enough for a well-described schema. It lacks explicit usage guidance and deeper behavioral caveats, but the core invocation context is present.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions (e.g., action_ref derivation, axes spec reference, issuer DID, key format, timestamp default). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the axis labels, so the baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Build and sign a four-axis AttributionPrimitive for an action.' It names all four axes (D, P, G, C), making the purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like aps_verify_attribution_primitive by emphasizing construction and signing, and notes the return value.

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 implies usage: you use it when you need to build and sign an attribution primitive for an action. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with similarly named tools (e.g., aps_create_attribution_receipt, aps_create_provisional), so the choice among alternatives is not clarified.

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