create_delegation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not state whether the tool requires specific permissions, whether there are side effects (e.g., notifications sent to the assignee), or what happens on creation (e.g., confirmation format, ID returned). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, key behavioral context is missing.

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 efficient with two short sentences and zero waste. It front-loads the verb+resource in the first sentence and adds purpose context in the second. While brief, it earns its place.

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?

There is an output schema present and 100% schema description coverage, which reduces the burden. However, for a creation tool with no annotations, the description falls short on behavioral context (side effects, notifications) and doesn't clarify the manual vs. programmatic creation distinction referenced by 'manually.' It's minimally adequate but has 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value over the schema beyond framing the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting and the description doesn't compensate further.

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 verb+resource ('Create a new delegation manually') and adds the purpose context ('track a task you've assigned to someone'). It distinguishes from create_commitment by referencing assigned tasks/delegation specifically, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The word 'manually' hints at an alternative creation path.

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 says 'Use this to track a task you've assigned to someone,' which gives reasonable usage context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives like create_commitment or create_follow_up, and there's no guidance on when NOT to use it.

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