delimit_prompt_drift

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

No annotations are present, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It describes detection and comparison but fails to mention side effects (e.g., recording data) or any destructive actions. The action parameter hints at write operations, but this is not clarified in the description.

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 brief (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and context of use, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., prior recordings needed) and how the output schema relates to results. Given the existence of an output schema, return values need not be explained in the description, but usage context could be richer.

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 having a description. The tool description adds no further detail about parameters (e.g., how 'record' differs from 'check'). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 detects prompt drift, tracks performance across specific models (Claude, Codex, Gemini), and identifies best model per task type. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like delimit_drift_check and delimit_drift_history, which focus on generic drift detection/history.

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 implies usage for comparing model performance on prompts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delimit_drift_check or delimit_drift_history. No when-not or exclusions are provided, leaving room for ambiguity.

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