Delimit Changelog

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing side effects: read-only on git/spec inputs, writes only when output_file is provided, and prepends rather than overwrites CHANGELOG.md, preserving history. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false and gives practical safety-relevant behavioral context.

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 well organized with labeled sections, bullets, and a front-loaded summary. Every section earns its place, and the side-effects paragraph is a valuable safety emphasis rather than filler.

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 tool's complexity (two modes, 8 optional parameters, output behavior), the description is complete enough: it covers when to use it, when not to, what each mode does, and side effects. The schema already documents all parameters and an output schema exists, so no critical return-value or parameter detail 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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaningful conceptual structure by mapping repo_path to git mode and old_spec + new_spec to spec mode. It also clarifies what git mode does (reads git log, categorizes commits, pulls completed ledger items) and that spec mode produces an API changelog, which helps an agent select the right parameter group.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a changelog from git + ledger (git mode) or spec diff (spec mode).' It also names the two sibling tools it is not (delimit_explain, delimit_release_plan), making the tool's unique output unmistakable.

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 has explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, naming exact alternatives and the conditions that route to them. The sibling contrast reinforces these decision boundaries, so an agent knows precisely when to select this tool over delimit_explain or delimit_release_plan.

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