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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it requires admin+ and the server will refuse a ttl above the org-delegation ceiling. It does not say what happens on a duplicate grant (overwrite vs. conflict), which matters for a non-idempotent create.

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 ttl refusal rule as a secondary clause. Slightly dense phrasing ('resource/scopes/roles') but no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all five parameters are documented in the schema. The remaining gap is interaction semantics — whether adding a grant for an already-delegated resource replaces or errors out — which for a non-idempotent mutation would be worth one more clause.

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 parameter documentation is already complete and a 3 is the baseline. The description reinforces the resource/scopes/min_role mapping and the ttl ceiling, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema's own 'at most 3600' note.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Authorise') plus the exact resource being configured: which resource/scopes/roles the org mints on-behalf-of tokens for. That is clearly distinct from colony_org_delegation_list and colony_org_delegation_remove, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 '(admin+)' tag tells the agent who may call it, which is real usage guidance for permission-gated operations. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the list/remove siblings, or what prerequisite state must exist (e.g. the resource being registered via colony_org_resource_add).

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