aps_capability_sign_effect

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

Describes core behavior (consume, reject replay, execute, sign) but lacks detail on side effects, failure handling, permissions, or destructiveness. No annotations exist to compensate.

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?

Concise two sentences plus keyword line. Jargon-heavy but efficient. Could be more accessible but earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and complex protocol, the description should explain return format and error states. It omits these, leaving gaps for an agent to handle 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 coverage is 57% (4 of 7 params have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema. Nested effect object is not explained.

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 the tool's role as M4 in a capability-token protocol: consuming token preimage, executing action, and signing an EffectReceipt. It distinguishes from siblings like aps_capability_issue_challenge.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. The description mentions protocol steps but does not direct the agent when to invoke this tool versus related ones.

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