aps_promote_statement

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the action (promote) and constraints (needs valid PromotionEvent, cannot promote dead_man_elapsed), but missing details on side effects, success/failure indication, authorization needs, or error behavior.

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 focused sentences. First sentence states purpose and requirement; second adds a key constraint. No redundant words, though slightly more structure could improve readability.

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?

No output schema, and tool involves complex multi-signature promotion. Description lacks return value, error conditions, and construction details for PromotionEvent. Adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for an agent.

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 brief descriptions. The description adds significant context: explains statement provenance, PromotionEvent structure, and PromotionPolicy fields. This goes beyond the schema's labels, aiding correct parameter construction.

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 purpose: promoting a provisional statement to binding via a PromotionEvent satisfying a PromotionPolicy. It also distinguishes what it cannot do (dead_man_elapsed), making the scope unambiguous.

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 usage for standard promotion through m-of-n signatures, but does not explicitly when to use this tool over alternatives like aps_withdraw_provisional or aps_verify_promotion. The mention of dead-man path provides indirect guidance but lacks explicit alternatives.

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