aps_verify_promotion

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the internal verification logic in detail, but it omits the return behavior (e.g., boolean, throw) and side effects (likely read-only but not stated). The term 'verify' implies a non-mutating check, but this is not made explicit.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action 'verify'. The parenthetical list is dense but each item is meaningful and directly supports the purpose. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 thoroughly explains what is verified, but because there is no output schema, it leaves out what happens on success or failure (e.g., returns boolean, raises exception). For a verification tool, this behavioral outcome is important context. Still, the core operation is well-covered.

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% with short descriptions for both parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The tool description adds semantic context by enumerating the criteria checked, which clarifies how 'statement' (PromotionEvent) and 'policy' are used together. This adds value beyond the schema's minimal 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 a specific action: 'verify that a promoted statement's PromotionEvent cryptographically satisfies the PromotionPolicy'. It lists concrete checks (policy_reference match, promoter in required_signers, threshold, signature, max_time_to_promote, author-signature tamper check), distinguishing it from other verify tools like aps_verify_attribution_consent or verify_delegation.

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 phrase 'Commitment boundary' provides clear context for when this tool is used, implying it is the validation step after promotion. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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