aps_sign_attribution_consent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals the operation's effect and a key consequence, but omits details on mutation, idempotency, required permissions, or return values. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a signature operation.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise without wasted words, though it could benefit from slight restructuring to separate purpose from consequence.

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?

The description lacks information about the tool's return value (no output schema) and does not clarify whether the 'receipt' parameter is optional despite not being required in the schema. Given the tool's role in a workflow, these gaps reduce completeness.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('adds their consent signature') and resource ('AttributionReceipt'), and explicitly distinguishes its role by naming dependent tools (verifyAttributionConsent, checkArtifactCitations), placing it in a workflow. This differentiates it from siblings effectively.

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 context by stating the consequence of omission (verification rejection), guiding the agent to call this before verification tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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