delimit_agent_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'creates a relationship' but does not clarify whether it is idempotent, what happens if the link already exists, or any side effects (e.g., permissions required, data mutation). The lack of detail beyond the basic purpose limits transparency.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and resource, and the second explains the purpose. There is no extraneous information, making it easy to parse.

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 the presence of an output schema (but not shown) and the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., re-linking, validation of IDs) and behavioral semantics. It is complete enough for basic use but not for nuanced scenarios.

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 baseline is 3. The tool's description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for task_id and ledger_item_id. It does not explain constraints, format details, or relationships between parameters.

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 ('Link an agent task to a ledger item') and the resource (agent task and ledger item), with a specific format (LED-xxx or STR-xxx). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on creating a relationship between agent tasks and ledger items, which is distinct from other agent operations (e.g., check, dispatch) and ledger operations (e.g., delimit_ledger_link).

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 usage for dashboard visualization ('so the dashboard shows which agent is working on which ledger item') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., delimit_agent_dispatch, delimit_ledger_link). There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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