aps_create_provisional

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: non-binding until promoted, and dead-man expiry auto-withdrawal. However, it omits details like authorization requirements, side effects, and the significance of the author_private_key parameter.

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 very concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose. However, the jargon ('PromotionEvent', 'PromotionPolicy', 'dead-man expiry') may reduce clarity for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain return values or side effects. It lacks mention of prerequisites, security implications of the private key, or what the created statement entails structurally.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the statement's non-binding nature and expiry, which complements but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema's 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 identifies the tool as emitting a provisional statement for agent-to-agent negotiation. It distinguishes from siblings like aps_promote_statement and aps_withdraw_provisional by specifying the 'commitment boundary' and non-binding default.

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 implies the tool is used for creating provisional statements in negotiation contexts, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus other aps_ tools, such as when a binding statement is needed.

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