Submit Delegation Extension

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, and the description goes beyond them by naming the concrete side effect (creates an extension order, may commit TRX from the internal account) and the auth model (session api-key via `tronsave_login` or `Authorization: ApiKey` header, keys never passed as tool args). It stops short of covering failure modes or retry/idempotency behavior for a non-idempotent write, which is the only meaningful gap.

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?

Purpose and endpoint come first, then auth, then side effects, then the data-sourcing rule — a sensible front-to-back order with no filler. It is on the dense side, packing auth, effects, and sequencing into a single paragraph, but nearly every clause carries actionable 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the operation, the required auth path, the side effect, the data-fetching dependency, and the sibling trap. Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the field-level descriptions already explain types, address patterns, and epoch-seconds semantics, so the baseline is 3. The prose adds real value by constraining `extendData` to the REST contract shape and requiring rows be echoed unchanged from the STEP 1 call, which prevents a plausible agent error.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Submit an extension request for existing delegated resources") and anchors it to the concrete REST endpoint `POST /v2/extend-request`. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings, `tronsave_internal_extend_delegates` (source of input) and `tronsave_list_extendable_delegates` (GraphQL, market discovery only).

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?

Gives an explicit two-step workflow: obtain `extendData` from `tronsave_internal_extend_delegates` (STEP 1) and pass rows unchanged. It also states a negative rule — do not copy rows from `tronsave_list_extendable_delegates` because the payload shape differs — which is exactly the kind of when-not guidance an agent needs.

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