aps_record_owner_confirmation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does disclose that the call builds and signs in one action, binds via hash, and is scoped. However, it omits important traits such as whether the confirmation is persisted, what the return value looks like, and the security implications of providing the owner's private key.

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 sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds distinct value: the escalation context, the single-call build-and-sign behavior, and the technical binding/scoping details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

This is a signing/authorization tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to carry more weight. It explains the core mechanism, but it does not mention what the tool returns, any prerequisites (e.g., valid delegation, matching key), or what happens after the confirmation is created.

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 a little extra context about scoping (per_action/per_session/time_window) and hash-binding of action_details, but the parameter meanings are mostly already covered by 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 states a clear action: 'Builds the ConfirmationRequest and signs it in a single call.' It specifies the resource (OwnerConfirmation) and the context (escalation boundary for flagged actions), which differentiates it from sibling tools like generic approval/request 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?

It provides clear context: this is for the escalation boundary where an owner authorizes a flagged action. It implies use when an action has been flagged and requires owner confirmation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to similar approval/signing tools.

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