delimit_ledger_link

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

The description discloses that blocks/blocked_by auto-creates reverse relationships, a behavioral trait beyond the schema. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it doesn't cover all behaviors (e.g., error handling, permissions), it adds meaningful context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, supported types, and usage context. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the main action.

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 simple CRUD-like nature, the description is adequate. It covers purpose, types, auto-reverse, and usage context. With 100% schema coverage and an output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could mention constraints on from_id/to_id or error conditions for completeness.

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%, and the description adds no significant new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. The auto-reverse note relates to behavior, not parameter semantics, so baseline 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 clearly states it creates a relationship between two ledger items, with specific verb 'Create' and resource. It lists supported relationship types, which distinguishes it from siblings like delimit_ledger_links (listing) and delimit_ledger_add (adding 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?

The description includes 'Use to track dependencies and sub-tasks,' which provides context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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