sub_delegate

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, permissions, and failure modes. It only mentions a constraint on scope/depth, but not what happens when the constraint is violated, whether it creates a permanent record, or whether it requires existing delegation. This lacks transparency for a mutation tool.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes a relevant constraint. No wasted words, but it is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has 4 required parameters and no output schema, and the description is only one clause. It does not explain the delegation workflow, error conditions, or relationship to sibling delegation tools. For a tool that modifies authority, this is insufficient.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond restating the constraint already present in schema descriptions.

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 ('Sub-delegate authority to another agent') and adds a scoping constraint, distinguishing it from create_delegation and other delegation tools. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied by the requirement to be 'within your delegation scope and depth' and the requirement of a parent_delegation_id, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like create_delegation or create_v2_delegation. No exclusions are provided.

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