supersede_v2_delegation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that justification and independent reviewer are required in certain cases, implying the operation modifies delegation state. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the original delegation is invalidated), reversibility, or required permissions. Thus it adds moderate value.

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, no fluff, and front-loads the primary action. Every sentence contributes value.

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 is moderately complex (7 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, no annotations). The description fails to explain what 'supersede' means in terms of state changes, return values, or lifecycle impact. Without an output schema, the agent needs more context on expected results, making this description 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 description coverage is only 14% (one parameter described), and the description does not explain the purpose of most parameters such as original_delegation_id, new_scope_categories, valid_until, trust_epoch, or expansion_reviewer_private_key. The only parameter hint is that expansion_reviewer is required for scope expansion, already present in the schema. The description adds little interpretability beyond 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 identifies the verb 'supersede' and the resource 'v2 delegation', and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_v2_delegation, revoke_delegation, or verify_delegation by focusing on modification of an existing delegation. It further specifies two critical scenarios (scope narrowing vs. expansion), adding specificity.

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 clear guidance on when justification is needed (scope narrowing) and when an independent reviewer is required (scope expansion). However, it does not explicitly state when to use supersede instead of alternatives like direct modification or revocation, nor does it mention any preconditions or context for usage.

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