ck_delegate

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

The description states that the tool 'Mutates session state to reflect the delegation,' which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. It does not contradict any annotations. It adds context about transferring governance context (findings, budget, proofs) and lists the four operational modes. While not exhaustive, it provides sufficient behavioral insight beyond the annotations.

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 concise (around 80 words) and well-structured: it opens with the main action, then details modes, agent parameter, prerequisite step, and comparison with sibling. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (four modes, governance transfer, prerequisite call to ck_route), the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, when to use it, how to use it, and available options. An output schema exists but is not shown, and the description appropriately avoids detailing return values.

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 80%, and the description adds meaningful context for 'agent' (example IDs, purpose), 'mode' (explains the four modes), and 'session_id' (correlation). The 'project_root' parameter lacks description in both schema and tool description, but the high baseline from coverage still warrants a score of 4 for the added value on the other parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Hand off a governed task or session to another AI agent, transferring governance context.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ck_route by specifying that ck_route is for recommendations without transfer, while ck_delegate is for actual handoff. The four modes are clearly listed, reinforcing the specific verb-resource pairing.

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 explicit guidance: 'Call ck_route first to identify the best agent, then ck_delegate to transfer.' It also clarifies when not to use the tool: 'Prefer ck_route when you only need a recommendation without transferring; prefer ck_delegate when you are ready to hand off execution.' This clearly scopes the usage context.

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