register_execution_delegation

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those traits. It adds useful context that the grant is user-signed and bounded by signed policy limits within a tier gate, but it omits prerequisites, persistence/revocation behavior, and what registration changes in the runtime.

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 short, with the core purpose stated in two compact sentences. The bracketed capability/API metadata is dense but brief, and the main action is clear despite not being the very first text.

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?

This is a complex nested mutation with 6 top-level parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the result, required policy/delegation relationships, preconditions, or workflow ordering with sibling tools. It gives the high-level effect but not enough context for reliable invocation.

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 50%, and the description adds no meaning for top-level parameters such as policy, delegation, sessionToken, executionDomain, or the relationship between signature and signed policy. Some nested fields are documented in the schema, but the description does not compensate for the remaining undocumented parameters.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Register', and a clear resource, 'user-signed bounded delegation grant', and states the effect: the agent runtime gains bounded autonomous execution authority. It does not differentiate this operation from sibling tools such as request_execution_delegation or verify_delegation, so it falls short of a 5.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as request_execution_delegation, verify_delegation, grant_session_key, or revoke_execution_authority. It only provides tier-gate and endpoint context, leaving the agent to infer the correct workflow position.

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