create_artifact_provenance

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It implies mutation (tagging) but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, idempotency, or whether existing provenance is overwritten. The fact that 'content' is used for hash and not stored is implied by schema description but not reinforced in tool description.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, clear verb and object. Conciseness is good, but the content is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations.

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?

With 8 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description must provide comprehensive context. It fails to describe the purpose of each required parameter, the return value, or error conditions. The agent is left with significant uncertainty about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 low (25%). The description only mentions 'content hash, risk class, authoring agent' but does not explain how these map to the 8 parameters (e.g., which param represents authoring agent?). Several required parameters (intended_use, valid_until, artifact_type) are omitted, leaving the agent to infer their meaning.

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 verb 'tag' and specifies 'artifact provenance', which clearly indicates creating a provenance record. It names key metadata like content hash, risk class, and authoring agent, but the latter is not reflected in the schema, creating slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative provenance or tagging tools in the sibling list (e.g., aps_create_attribution_receipt). No mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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