approve_delegate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'approve' but doesn't specify if this is a write operation, requires authentication, has side effects like token locking, or involves transaction fees. For a tool that likely modifies permissions, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.

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 complexity of a delegation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after approval (e.g., success response, error conditions, or token state changes), leaving critical behavioral and output details undocumented.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying a delegation relationship, which doesn't enhance understanding of the parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Approve a delegate') and the resource ('to transfer tokens on your behalf'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'revoke_delegate' or 'set_token_authority', which would require a more specific comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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 like 'revoke_delegate' or 'set_token_authority', nor does it mention prerequisites such as wallet ownership or token availability. It lacks context about typical scenarios or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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