delimit_ledger_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It reveals the key behavioral trait 'auto-creates reverse' for blocks/blocked_by, which is not obvious from the schema. It does not specify error handling or overwriting behavior, but these are minor for a creation tool.

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 two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a list of supported types. It is efficient and avoids fluff, though a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve scannability.

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 5 parameters (all described), an output schema, and the description covers behavioral traits (reverse link creation), it provides sufficient information for correct invocation. The description does not need to detail return values due to the output schema.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds context beyond the schema only for link_type (list of valid values) and venture (auto-detection). This provides some added value, justifying a baseline 3.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource 'Create a relationship between two ledger items.' It lists all supported link types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delimit_ledger_add (which adds items) and delimit_ledger_done (completes 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 explicitly states the purpose 'to track dependencies and sub-tasks' and enumerates link type options. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a simple creation tool.

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