vip_delegate

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the locking behavior and release time constraint, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the delegation creates a position, requires prior VIP setup, or might fail due to insufficient balance. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Single sentence conveys purpose and key constraint efficiently. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly improved with structured bullets but remains concise.

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 8 parameters (including dryRun, confirm, memo) and no output schema, the description does not explain simulation/broadcast workflow, return behavior, or potential errors. Agent lacks information on how to safely invoke the tool, especially for a mutation without output schema.

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 each parameter's purpose. The description adds no further semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 (lock-delegate), the target (validator), the context (via VIP), and the constraint (locked until release time). Distinguished from sibling tools like 'vip_undelegate' or 'vip_provide_and_delegate'.

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?

Description implies when to use (lock-delegation scenario) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like 'vip_provide_and_delegate' (which also delegates) or 'vip_undelegate' (reverse operation). Missing explicit context for agent decision-making.

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