Create Provisional Statement

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding lifecycle semantics the annotations cannot express: the statement is non-binding by default until a PromotionEvent satisfies a PromotionPolicy, and dead-man expiry auto-withdraws it. It stops short of stating that the call requires the author's private key to sign, or what happens on signing failure.

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?

Three tight sentences with the framing ('Commitment boundary') front-loaded and the binding/expiry rules following. No filler, though the leading label is slightly opaque and the sentence boundaries could be sharper.

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?

For a six-parameter, four-required signing tool with no output schema, the description covers lifecycle but not the result: it never says what the caller receives (statement id, signed artifact, receipt) or that a private key is mandatory. Annotations and the rich schema carry most of the load, so this is adequate but has a real gap around outcomes.

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 description coverage is 100% across all six parameters, so the schema already documents author, content, gateway_id, dead_man_ms, author_principal and author_private_key. The description's dead-man expiry sentence largely restates the schema's own wording for dead_man_ms and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('emit a provisional statement') and scopes it to 'agent-to-agent negotiation'. It implicitly separates the provisional stage from the promotion stage (PromotionEvent/PromotionPolicy), which is the key distinction from siblings like aps_promote_statement and aps_withdraw_provisional, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this for negotiation-time statements that are non-binding until promoted. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. an existing author principal/identity), and no routing to the alternative tools an agent should reach for when the statement must be made binding or retracted.

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