ep_create_delegation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds 'WRITE: persists to the EP ledger', which aligns and provides additional behavioral context (persistence, ledger). No contradictions, and the description adds value beyond annotations by mentioning authentication requirements.

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 relatively concise with two sentences, but the first sentence is somewhat long and includes multiple pieces of information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but could be slightly more structured. Still, it is efficient without waste.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('Returns a delegation_id that later actions reference'). It also covers key aspects like scope, expiry, constraints, and the fact that it requires auth. For a tool with 6 parameters and nested objects, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds overall context but does not significantly elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not add extra semantics for the 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 clearly states 'Create a delegation record' and explains the purpose of persisting authorization. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that the returned delegation_id is used by ep_verify_delegation, providing a specific verb-resource pair and scope.

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 explicitly says 'Use when a principal grants an agent standing authority for a bounded set of actions' and mentions 'Requires auth.' While it doesn't specify when not to use, it provides clear context for appropriate use relative to the sibling tools.

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