approve_delegation

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: signing with user wallet, re-arming on re-grant, replacement requirement, honest bound and risks (delegate can spend to any destination including itself, drain future USDC). No contradictions.

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?

Description is fairly long but each sentence adds value, with front-loaded core action. Could be slightly shorter, but the detail is necessary for safe use.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers all necessary aspects: action, prerequisites, parameter details, behavioral nuance, safety rule. Completely adequate for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, but description explains all three parameters: cap_usdc as the cap in USDC, provider as npub or hex pubkey with delegate from capability card, replace_existing for replacing different delegates. Adds meaning well beyond schema names.

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?

Description clearly states the action (grant a bounded USDC allowance), the resource (discovered provider with delegate key), and distinguishes it from sibling delegation tools like get_delegation and revoke_delegation. It also details the signing and gating requirements.

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?

Provides explicit context for use (requires ELISYM_ALLOW_DELEGATION=1) and strong safety guidance (never approve based on job results, only when user asks). Lacks direct mention of siblings for alternatives, but context is clear.

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