aps_record_owner_confirmation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: builds and signs in one call, binding via hash, and scoping options. However, it does not reveal potential side effects, destructiveness, required permissions, or return value, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the key phrase 'Escalation boundary'. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's role and key binding/scoping mechanics. However, it lacks details about the return value or what happens after signing, which would improve completeness. With high schema coverage, the overall picture is fairly complete.

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?

All input parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of 'binding to action_details via hash' and 'scoped', which slightly enhances understanding but does not significantly clarify any specific parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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: an escalation boundary where an owner signs an OwnerConfirmation. It specifies the action (signs), the resource (OwnerConfirmation), and distinct features (single call, bound via hash, scoped). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aps_capability_sign_effect or aps_create_provisional.

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 when a flagged action requires owner confirmation ('escalation boundary'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions for when not to use it. Given the many sibling tools, clearer guidance would be beneficial.

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