update_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. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description doesn't state whether the update is partial (only provided fields change) or full-replacement, whether status transitions are validated, or what the response contains. The schema shows nullable fields with defaults of null, suggesting partial updates, but the description never clarifies this behavior.

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 a single concise sentence with zero wasted words. However, it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness—it's so short it provides almost no information.

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?

This is a mutation tool (no annotations) with 5 parameters and an output schema, but the description is minimal. It doesn't clarify partial-update semantics, which parameters are optional, whether nullable fields mean 'unset' behavior, or how this relates to complete_delegation/create_delegation. Given the complexity of partial updates, more explanation is warranted.

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 every parameter has a description in the schema. The description itself adds nothing beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate. The schema already documents each updatable field's meaning and the status/priority enum values.

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 'Update a delegation' uses a clear verb+resource structure, but it's a tautology of the tool name. It doesn't specify what fields can be updated, and while there are sibling tools like create_delegation and complete_delegation that are clearly distinct, the update description adds no differentiation beyond saying it updates.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It doesn't mention that create_delegation is for new delegations, complete_delegation for finishing, or how update differs from those. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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