generate_aps_txt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions cryptographic signing and the included terms/revocation endpoint/MCP path, but it does not disclose what the tool returns (file content vs. writing to disk), permission requirements, or handling of the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The analogy to robots.txt conveys a lot of context efficiently.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does not say what the tool outputs or how to handle the generated file. It also doesn't reference the sibling verify_aps_txt tool, which would help complete the workflow.

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 only 44%, and many parameters (training, inference, mcpEndpoint, redistribution, revocationEndpoint) lack schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by indicating these are related to 'terms', 'revocation endpoint', and 'MCP upgrade path', but it does not map each parameter explicitly.

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 it generates a signed aps.txt file for site-wide governance. The analogy to robots.txt plus the mention of signing and governance makes its purpose distinct from siblings like verify_aps_txt or generate_keys.

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 context that this is for site-wide governance, akin to robots.txt, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like verify_aps_txt for validation.

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