delimit_ledger_update

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 only states it updates fields but does not disclose behavior such as whether updates are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields (implied unchanged), required permissions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with 13 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 sentences, front-loading the purpose and then listing fields with a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 100% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks mention of return values (e.g., whether it returns the updated item) and does not clarify the behavior for non-supplied fields beyond the implicit 'remain unchanged'. In a toolset with many ledger siblings, it could be more explicit about its role.

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% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the supported field categories (status, priority, etc.) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., valid values or formatting hints). Thus, it provides marginal added value.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'ledger item', and lists supported fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like delimit_ledger_add (which adds new items) or delimit_ledger_done (which marks items as done), so it loses a point.

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 advises 'Pass only the fields you want to change,' which is helpful. But it does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., adding a new item vs. updating an existing one) or mention any prerequisites or context.

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