create_delegation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly. It states the attestation's limited meaning, the billable nature of each mint, the reject-never-truncate lifetime behavior, and the consistent result shape across list, get, and create. This lets an agent predict side effects and failure modes far better than the schema alone would.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core action, scope limitation, billing impact, lifetime behavior, output shape, and access requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the ACCESS section is clearly separated for actionable setup information. There is no filler or tautology.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It states the output contents (publishable token plus effective_status/is_valid), the access path, the billing consequence, the lifetime constraint, and the attestation semantics. Combined with the fully described schema, an agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and anticipate its result.

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, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it frames control_proof as a 'control-proven domain', explains the artifact types, and clarifies that over-long lifetimes are rejected rather than silently truncated. It does not repeat every parameter detail, but it adds contextual value where the schema is merely descriptive.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a delegation (Proof of Delegation)') and clearly defines what the tool does: authorizing a typed url/purl artifact for capability scopes and producing a publishable signed token. It also differentiates the result from the list and get tools and explicitly contrasts access with start_login, so an agent can distinguish it from nearby tools.

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 gives clear access prerequisites ('needs a Proof account', set PROOF_API_KEY, restart the server, then call again) and a clear when-not ('start_login does NOT open this tool'). It also flags that each mint is billable, which is an important usage consideration. It stops short of explicitly enumerating alternative delegation tools like verify_delegation or revoke_delegation, so it is not a 5.

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