supersede_v2_delegation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal important prerequisites (justification for narrowing, reviewer for expansion) but omits critical side effects such as whether the original delegation is invalidated, whether the operation is atomic, or what permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like governance 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the two requirement statements are clear and purposeful. This is an example of concise, effective structure.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only mentions the action and two conditions. It does not explain the return value, the effect on the original delegation, the trust_epoch parameter, or how valid_until should be formatted. This is inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 schema coverage is very low (14%), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'justification' and 'expansion_reviewer' by linking them to scope narrowing and expansion, but it does not clarify the semantics of original_delegation_id, new_scope_categories, valid_until, trust_epoch, or expansion_reviewer_private_key. With seven parameters, this is insufficient.

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 identifies the action ('Supersede') and the resource ('a v2 delegation'), which distinguishes it from related tools like revoke_delegation or create_v2_delegation. However, it does not define what superseding entails operationally, so it falls slightly 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 provides concrete conditions for use: scope narrowing requires justification and scope expansion requires an independent reviewer. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when this tool should be preferred over revoke or create, leaving the usage context incomplete.

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