request_delegation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the authorization effect and automatic processing condition, but lacks details on idempotence, side effects if already delegated, or whether the operation is safe/read-only.

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 sentences, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core functionality and automatic processing hint. It could include expected outcome or response format, but overall sufficient.

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% with descriptions for cuit and organization. The tool description adds overarching purpose but no additional semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool requests ARCA/AFIP delegation for electronic invoicing, authorizing KeyCAE to emit invoices. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_delegation (checking delegation status) and emit_invoice (emitting invoices).

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 provides context that this is for authorizing KeyCAE and mentions an alternative (Hermes auto-delegation if enabled). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or prerequisites like checking existing delegation via check_delegation.

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