delimit_ledger_done

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires special permissions. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about side effects or safety.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action efficiently. However, it sacrifices important details for brevity. It's concise but borderline underwhelming.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what 'done' means, how the tool behaves if the item is already done, or any error/conflict handling. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for a simple state-change operation.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, so the schema already explains them. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema. Given the high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Mark a ledger item as done' uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('ledger item') and clearly indicates the action is changing state to 'done'. This distinguishes it from siblings like delimit_ledger_add (adds items) or delimit_ledger_list (lists items).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., delimit_ledger_update, which might also modify a ledger item). No preconditions or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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