delimit_ledger_update

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

With no annotations, the description has full burden. It states partial update behavior ('Pass only the fields you want to change'), but lacks details on authorization, reversibility, side effects, or response format. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists supported fields and usage tip. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key 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 13 parameters, optional fields, and existing output schema, the description covers the essential update semantics. It could mention return behavior or error handling, but is largely sufficient for a mutation tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the parameter list and adds the key insight that only changed fields need to be passed, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool updates any field on a ledger item, with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('ledger item'). It lists supported fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delimit_ledger_add, delimit_ledger_done, and delimit_ledger_link.

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 provides clear context: update specific fields by passing only desired changes. It implies when to use this tool (to modify existing items) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to alternatives like delimit_ledger_add for creation.

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