Generate aps.txt

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

Annotations already establish the safe, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the description's remaining burden is modest. It adds useful artifact context (the file is cryptographically signed, and contains terms, a revocation endpoint, and an MCP upgrade path), but says nothing about the signing key sensitivity or how the signature is produced, so it only modestly exceeds what annotations provide.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the analogy second to build intuition. No filler, though the second sentence is doing double duty as both explanation and parameter hint.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and 44% schema coverage, the description is thin: it never states that the tool returns the signed file contents, how the three policy enums interact, or what the caller must supply versus omit. It conveys the concept well but leaves multiple call-shaping details unaddressed.

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 only 44%, so several parameters (the training/inference/redistribution enums, mcpEndpoint) carry no documentation anywhere. The description partially compensates by naming 'terms', 'revocation endpoint', and 'MCP upgrade path', which hints at those inputs, but it never explains the enum values or flags that privateKey is a sensitive credential.

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?

Specific verb (generate) plus specific artifact (a signed aps.txt file), and the robots.txt analogy makes the concept immediately legible. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling verify_aps_txt, but it never names that sibling or explicitly states it is the producer-side counterpart rather than the checker.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named despite a crowded sibling set (verify_aps_txt, verify_governance_block, create_disclosure, sign_charter). The agent must infer that this is the authoring step and that verify_aps_txt is the later verification step.

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