Prepare Agent Delegation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the unsigned payload is stored encrypted in the agent vault (a real side effect), but says nothing about required authority/permissions, reversibility, or that the delegation is inert until a separate signing step, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action, the default configuration, and the storage side effect front-loaded in that order. No filler or redundancy.

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 20-parameter, workflow-critical tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the defaults but omits the surrounding workflow (subsequent signature/completion steps) and what the caller gets back. It is serviceable but doesn't fully orient the agent within the delegation lifecycle.

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 20 parameters, including defaults for chain, scopeType, token, and periodDuration. The description merely restates the headline defaults (1Shot relayer, Base USDC daily scope) without adding new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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), resource (a pending ERC-7710 delegation), and source (the connected WalletChan wallet), which is concrete and unambiguous. It implies this is the first step via 'pending' and 'unsigned', but never names the follow-up siblings (agent_request_delegation_signature, agent_complete_delegation), so differentiation is contextual rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself and by the default-relayer framing, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to sibling tools that carry the delegation workflow forward. An agent must infer that signing/completion is a separate tool.

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