Supersede v2 Delegation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/repeat-call profile is covered. The description adds governance policy context (justification and independent reviewer requirements) beyond the annotations, but omits key behavior such as whether the original delegation is invalidated, whether the operation is reversible, and what authorization is needed.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the conditional constraints. Slightly clipped phrasing ('also needs independent reviewer') costs a little clarity but wastes no space.

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 destructive, 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and very low schema coverage, the description covers the two most consequential conditional rules but leaves most parameters and the post-supersede state of the original delegation unexplained. It is adequate but has 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 description coverage is only 14% across 7 parameters, so the description should carry more weight. It usefully explains the conditional requirement for expansion_reviewer and the need for justification, but says nothing about original_delegation_id, new_scope_categories, valid_until, trust_epoch, or expansion_reviewer_private_key.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Supersede a v2 delegation'), which is distinguishable from siblings like create_v2_delegation, revoke_delegation, and sub_delegate. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or state what 'supersede' means relative to revocation.

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?

It gives conditional rules ('scope narrowing needs justification', 'scope expansion also needs independent reviewer'), which is genuine guidance for choosing inputs, but it never says when an agent should supersede rather than revoke or create a new delegation. Usage is implied rather than framed against alternatives.

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