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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Auth required' and implies a state change, but it omits side effects, reversibility, whether the prepared state is consumed, and failure/response behavior. This is a thin behavioral disclosure for a mutating 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the action, the target state, the required signature, and the auth requirement.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and auth requirement but leaves out explicit prerequisite details (that the delegation must already be in prepared state) and postconditions. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some useful context by calling the digest the 'enable digest' and emphasizing the 'prepared delegation' state, but it does not materially clarify id, owner, or enable_sig beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb ('Activate') with a clear resource ('prepared delegation') and a precise mechanism ('owner's signature over its enable digest'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_delegation, renew_delegation, and revoke_delegation.

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 phrase 'prepared delegation' clearly implies this is used after prepare_delegation, and the requirement of the owner's signature gives concrete usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of the top score.

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