delegate_votes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is an on-chain transaction that submits a signed transaction, consumes gas, requires a private key, or is irreversible. The only clue to mutability is the word 'Delegate' and the schema's privateKey description. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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 no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and adds a key nuance in parentheses. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for its purpose.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely minimal. It lacks essential context for a transaction-based tool: it doesn't mention that it broadcasts a transaction, that network defaults apply (though the schema does), that it returns a transaction hash, or any prerequisites like token ownership or existing delegation. For a governance permission-changing tool, this is inadequate completeness.

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?

The schema descriptions are comprehensive (100% coverage), giving baseline of 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explicitly noting that the delegatee can be 'self to activate', which clarifies a special and important usage of the delegatee parameter. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Address to delegate voting power to', providing actionable guidance.

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 action: 'Delegate voting power to an address (or self to activate)'. The verb 'delegate' and resource 'voting power' are specific, and the parenthetical distinguishes this from related governance tools like cast_vote or get_voting_power. It immediately tells the agent what the tool does and how it differs from sibling tools.

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 when to use this tool, especially the 'self to activate' hint, which suggests a prerequisite for voting. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use it. No guidance is provided on when to prefer delegate_votes over other governance tools like cast_vote or get_delegation_info, leaving usage context implicit.

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