subscribe_to_delegate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuine context beyond them: the idempotency key (object_path, delegate_name), the exact return shape, and that parameters are captured on each firing. It does not cover cleanup/lifetime, but the added detail is substantive.

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 plus a return-value line, front-loaded with the action and effects. No filler; every clause (idempotency, return shape, parameter recording) carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully inlines the return object, and it covers the idempotency contract and recording semantics. It omits how the subscription is consumed (poll_delegate_events) or torn down, which a complete definition would hint at, but nothing required for a correct call is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented with accepted path/name formats. The description references them only to explain the idempotency key, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (bind/subscribe) and resource (dynamic multicast delegate on a live object), plus the recording behavior. An agent can tell this is the subscription half of a subscribe/poll/unsubscribe trio. It stops short of naming its siblings (unsubscribe_delegate, poll_delegate_events), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 idempotency note ('re-subscribing returns the existing subscription_id') is useful operational guidance, and 'start recording every time it fires' implies a later poll step. But it never explicitly says when to prefer this over poll_delegate_events or that unsubscribe_delegate is the teardown counterpart, leaving the workflow to inference.

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