delimit_ledger_done

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly outlines side effects: writes status='done', attaches ship_proof block with verified=True when commit_sha or pr_url is provided, and mentions future Phase 2 enforcement. This goes beyond basic functionality and discloses important behavioral traits.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections ('When to use', 'When NOT to use', 'Sibling contrast', 'Side effects'). Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the 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 has a clear purpose, explicit guidelines, detailed parameter semantics, and an output schema (not shown but flagged), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool. It covers all necessary aspects without gaps.

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 explaining the LED-1408 feature: auto-extraction of PR URLs from notes, and the meaning of commit_sha/pr_url as ship proof. This provides context that the schema descriptions hint at but do not fully elaborate, making it easier for the agent to understand parameters' purpose.

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: 'Mark a ledger item as done (convenience wrapper).' It uses a specific verb ('mark as done') and resource ('ledger item'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining it is a shortcut for delimit_ledger_update with status='done'.

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 guidance on when to use ('to close out a ledger item with one call') and when NOT to use ('to change other fields' or 'create new items'). It also mentions sibling contrast with delimit_ledger_update. This is comprehensive and helps the agent make correct decisions.

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