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

Annotations already indicate read-write behavior. The description adds useful details like TTL clamping and admin role restriction, but does not fully disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether existing grants are replaced or if there are limits). It provides moderate behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding only essential detail. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 complete schema descriptions and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a write operation. It covers key behaviors (clamping, role requirement) but could be more explicit about the creation aspect and how it fits with sibling operations.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that max_ttl_seconds is clamped to the org ceiling, but otherwise does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Authorise') and the resource ('org delegation'), specifying involved components (resource/scopes/roles) and a constraint (admin+). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (list, remove), relying on the tool name for that distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like colony_org_delegation_list or colony_org_delegation_remove. It only hints at an administrative role requirement ('admin+'), but lacks explicit context for decision-making.

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