delimit_ledger_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects: writes via ai.ledger_manager.add_item and coerces comma strings to lists for certain parameters. This goes beyond basic operation description, though it omits details like error behavior or idempotency. Still, it provides meaningful behavioral insight.

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 clear sections (action, use cases, sibling contrast, side effects) and is front-loaded with the primary action. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise. Overall, it balances completeness and brevity effectively.

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 complexity (13 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (context signals indicate has output schema: true), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral traits. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites, but it is sufficient for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that tags, acceptance_criteria, and tools_needed are coerced from comma strings to lists, but it does not explain other parameters beyond schema descriptions. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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's purpose: 'Add a new item to a project's ledger.' It further distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying when to use (capture work that outlives the session) and when not to use (governance-classed work or quick memory). It explicitly contrasts with delimit_ledger_update and delimit_ledger_done, providing a clear identity.

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 provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, naming specific alternatives (delimit_gov_new_task, delimit_memory_store). It also gives a sibling contrast explaining how this create operation differs from update and close. This gives the agent precise guidance on tool selection.

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