aps_create_provisional

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: default non-binding, promotion condition via PromotionPolicy, and dead-man expiry auto-withdrawal. It lacks details about persistence or return behavior, but the disclosed lifecycle semantics are substantial.

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 three dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The opening 'Commitment boundary' provides framing, and each subsequent sentence adds essential lifecycle information.

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 lifecycle-driven provisional commitment tool, the description covers the core purpose, non-binding default, promotion trigger, and expiry behavior. It could be improved by referencing sibling tools for promotion/withdrawal and clarifying the return value, but the schema covers parameter details fully.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning around dead-man expiry and promotion policy, but it does not provide parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states 'emit a provisional statement for agent-to-agent negotiation' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself by explaining 'non-binding until a PromotionEvent satisfies a PromotionPolicy,' setting it apart from final/promotion-related tools.

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 for when to use the tool: for non-binding, provisional statements in agent-to-agent negotiation. It implies exclusions (e.g., not for binding commitments) but does not explicitly name alternatives like aps_promote_statement or aps_withdraw_provisional.

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