aps_sign_attribution_consent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the concrete consequence of omitting the signature (verification failures) and implies mutation of the receipt, but it does not clarify whether the receipt is modified in place or returned, nor address private key handling or reversibility.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence establishes the tool's role, the second explains the operational consequence. Every word earns its place, and key 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 description explains the tool's purpose and a crucial prerequisite (verification failures without signature), but it omits return value information. Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally clarify what the operation returns (e.g., updated receipt), leaving the outcome partially ambiguous.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('AttributionReceipt JSON from aps_create_attribution_receipt' and 'Hex private key of cited principal'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema indicates, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'adds' and resource 'consent signature to an AttributionReceipt', clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling verification tools like aps_verify_attribution_consent and aps_check_artifact_citations by focusing on the signing action.

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: without this signature, verifyAttributionConsent and checkArtifactCitations reject the receipt. This implies the tool should be used before those verification steps, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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