delimit_swarm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Manage' but does not specify whether this tool creates, updates, or destroys resources, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or the impact of operations. Reference to a standard helps but is vague.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently conveys key concepts without unnecessary detail, though a slightly more structured breakdown of supported actions 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 complexity (7 parameters, no required ones, many sibling tools), the description omits important context such as return value structure, default action behavior, and interplay with other swarm-related tools. It fails to provide a complete picture for correct tool selection and invocation.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions in the schema are vague (e.g., 'See actions above.' for 'action', and varying interpretations for 'repo_path' and 'target_path'). The overall description does not elaborate on parameter meanings or ranges, so it adds no value beyond the schema itself.

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 it manages the agent swarm, specifying key concepts like ventures, personas, and namespace isolation. It provides concrete details about 5 agent roles per venture, which helps distinguish it from agent-level sibling tools. However, it could be more explicit about the specific management actions (e.g., create, delete, configure).

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools (e.g., delimit_activate, delimit_agent_status), there is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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