delegate_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses the access level (OPERATOR), included capabilities, exclusions, the fact that an invite is sent, optional time limits, and the owner-only restriction. It does not mention immediate vs. pending access or revocation mechanics, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and then expands with scope, invite behavior, and owner-only constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a relatively simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what access is granted, what is included/excluded, what happens (invite), optional expiry, and ownership requirement. It does not mention the acceptance flow or response format, which slightly reduces completeness, but it is largely 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'by email' and 'optional time limit', but it does not substantially enrich the parameter definitions already present in the schema.

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 ('Grant OPERATOR access') and the resource ('one of your VPS to another person by email'). It also differentiates the scope ('power/reinstall/console/hostname/rDNS, not billing') from the sibling delegation tools, making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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 indicates when to use the tool by specifying the grant action, the recipient mechanism ('by email'), and a key prerequisite ('Owner-only'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions beyond 'not billing', but the verb and the sibling names (accept_delegation, revoke_delegation) provide enough contextual distinction.

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