delegate_resource

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that the operation uses 'staked resources' from 'the configured wallet', which implies a prerequisite that resources must be staked and a wallet must be selected. However, it does not disclose side effects like lock periods, whether delegation can be revoked, or the transaction nature. Given annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that places the action first and includes the key differentiators (resource types and destination). Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 moderate complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient: it states what the tool does and the main scoping. However, it lacks usage context such as when to delegate vs freeze, prerequisites, or any side effects/return value. With rich sibling tooling, a bit more context would improve completeness, but the schema and annotations cover the essential mechanics.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, each with clear descriptions. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does implicitly say the resource parameter is BANDWIDTH or ENERGY, but that is already in the schema enum.

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 ('Delegate'), the resource being delegated ('staked resources (BANDWIDTH or ENERGY)'), and the target ('another address'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like undelegate_resource (opposite direction), freeze_balance_v2 (staking, not delegating), and transfer_trx (transferring TRX, not resources). The verb+resource+destination structure makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing staked resources first) or exclusions (e.g., not suitable for undelegation). Users must infer from the name and siblings.

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