aps_promote_statement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core mechanism (attaching a PromotionEvent satisfying m-of-n signatures) and a key edge case (dead_man_elapsed auto-withdraws). However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or return behavior, which are important for a mutation 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with 'Commitment boundary:' and zero redundant wording. It efficiently covers purpose, mechanism, and an exclusion in a compact, well-structured form.

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 description provides good context for the core operation and leverages the schema's parameter descriptions. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not explain return values, error cases, or post-promotion behavior (beyond 'binding'). It also omits prerequisites such as needing a valid provisional statement, aside from what is inferred from the schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between promotion_event and policy ('m-of-n principal signatures') and by clarifying that dead_man_elapsed is an invalid state. This helps the agent understand how to construct valid parameters beyond the terse schema descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'promote a provisional statement to binding by attaching a PromotionEvent that satisfies the PromotionPolicy (m-of-n principal signatures)'. It uses a specific verb (promote) and resource (provisional statement), and the scope (to binding) is explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aps_create_provisional and aps_withdraw_provisional.

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 a clear usage boundary by stating 'dead_man_elapsed cannot promote — it auto-withdraws via the dead-man path.' This gives an explicit when-not condition. However, it does not name an alternative tool (e.g., aps_withdraw_provisional) for the dead-man path, so it falls short of fully explicit alternatives.

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