Create v2 Delegation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, so the write/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds useful non-obvious context: the delegation carries versioning, requires a sunset (expiration), and is bound to a PolicyContext. It does not state required permissions, what binding to a PolicyContext entails operationally, or whether existing delegations are superseded.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though it could have used a second short clause to route to the right sibling.

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 mutating authority-granting tool with no output schema, the description covers the key structural traits (versioning, sunset, PolicyContext binding) but omits permission requirements, the relationship to the supersede/revoke siblings, and any indication of what a successful creation returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 75% (trust_epoch lacks a description), so the schema mostly documents the inputs. The description's 'mandatory sunset' hints that valid_until is required and 'versioning' loosely maps to trust_epoch, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a v2 delegation') and distinguishes it from v1 by naming the 'v2' designation. It also enumerates key characteristics (versioning, mandatory sunset, PolicyContext binding). However, it does not differentiate itself explicitly from siblings like create_delegation, supersede_v2_delegation, or sub_delegate.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_delegation or supersede_v2_delegation, which sit in the same authority-management family. The phrase 'mandatory sunset' implicitly signals that valid_until must be set, but the agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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