delimit_ledger_groom

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly declares read-only nature and return of proposals. Warns about risky operations and mentions that each proposal includes a copy-pasteable ready_to_apply invocation. Could be slightly more specific about what constitutes stale/duplicate/garbage, but overall good transparency.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded with main purpose. However, it repeats the risky operations warning twice, which slightly reduces conciseness. Otherwise efficient use of sentences.

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 no annotations and rich schema, description provides complete context: purpose, usage, side effects, sibling contrast, and even references a project ticket. It fully explains the tool's role in the ledger family and the review-then-apply workflow.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds minimal extra value beyond schema, only noting that venture auto-detects. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states it is a read-only grooming proposal that flags stale/duplicate/garbage items. It distinguishes from siblings delimit_ledger_bulk (applies changes) and delimit_ledger_health (composes checks). Verb 'proposes' and resource 'ledger items' are specific.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (periodic review) and when not to use (to apply changes). Provides alternative tool 'delimit_ledger_bulk' and warns that risky operations must go through bulk after review. Clear guidance on appropriate usage context.

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