ep_create_delegation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the delegation is recorded in the EP ledger with scope, expiry, and optional constraints, and that delegated actions can reference it. However, it lacks details on idempotency, error states, or side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 four sentences and front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently explains the concept and the recording mechanism. No superfluous words; it is concise for the complexity.

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 should explain what the tool returns (e.g., delegation ID, success status). It does not. Also, with 6 parameters including nested objects, additional context on usage constraints or prerequisites would be valuable. The description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only contextualizing that the delegation is recorded in the ledger with scope, expiry, and constraints. It does not explain parameter formats or relationships beyond what's in the schema.

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 the tool creates a delegation record and explains what a delegation is (a principal authorizes an agent). The verb 'create' and resource 'delegation record' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ep_delegation_judgment or ep_verify_delegation, so it loses a point.

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 implies usage context (when you need to authorize an agent), but it provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or what alternatives exist among siblings. For example, it doesn't mention that verification or judgment of delegations should be done with other tools.

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