delimit_control

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: list/get are read-only, approve/reject append to an existing store, reject stamps disposition='rejected', idempotent re-approve no-ops, and no new store created. This covers safety, side effects, and idempotency comprehensively.

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-structured with sections for purpose, when to use, when not, sibling contrast, and side effects. It is slightly verbose but every sentence contributes meaningful information. Front-loaded with core 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple action types, lane unification) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage boundaries, side effects, and differentiation from siblings. No obvious gaps in required information for agent invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that approve/reject act only on approval-class items and that item_id is required for specific actions, reinforcing schema descriptions. It does not fully redundantly document each parameter but provides useful context.

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 tool aggregates governance lanes into a shared queue and can approve/reject approvals. It specifies the verb+resource ('aggregate', 'approve/reject') and distinguishes itself from siblings like delimit_agent_dashboard, delimit_ledger_context, and delimit_notify_inbox.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide clear guidance. It specifies that the tool is for the shared queue and approval-class actions only, and directs mutation of other items to their owning tools, which is excellent for agent decision-making.

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