Create Delegation Certificate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it produces an output certificate file, without disclosing overwrite behavior, required permissions, or other operational traits beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists parameters in a compact block. The parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall size is appropriate and no sentence is wasted.

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?

With a simple three-parameter write tool, no output schema, and annotations covering safety hints, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly. It names all required parameters and the output file, though it omits details like file overwrite behavior and certificate format.

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 three parameters. The description merely repeats the schema descriptions verbatim, adding no extra semantic detail such as file format expectations or key file validity.

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 states a specific verb ('create') and resource ('stake delegation certificate') and clarifies the purpose ('to delegate to a stake pool'). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling vote-delegation certificate, but does not explicitly name any alternative tool.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The description only explains what the tool creates and lists parameters, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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