delimit_playbook

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states side effects: mutation for save/delete (~/.delimit/playbooks/), model call for run, read-only for list. It also mentions variable substitution and cross-assistant sharing. However, it doesn't mention auth needs, overwrite behavior, or error conditions, which would push to 5.

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?

Well-structured: summary line, then usage guidelines, sibling contrast, side effects. All sentences are relevant. Could be slightly tighter, but no extraneous content. Front-loaded with purpose, making it easy to scan.

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's complexity (7 params, multiple actions, variable substitution), the description covers key aspects: purpose, usage guidance, side effects, and sibling differentiation. It does not detail output format, but an output schema exists. A minor gap is no mention of required conditions for save/run/delete (e.g., name required), but schema provides that. Overall adequate and helpful.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds high-level context (grouping actions, variable format) but does not add detailed semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description complements but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Manage reusable prompt templates — save / run / list / delete.' It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like delimit_memory_store and delimit_project_config, which are explicitly mentioned in sibling contrast.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('save your best prompts as named commands and run them later') and when-not-to-use ('manage project config' or 'memories'), with specific alternative tool names. Also includes sibling contrast sentence. This exceeds the typical guidance.

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