Delimit Vendor News Draft

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already signal this is a mutating operation, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses premium gating (require_premium), the end-to-end pipeline stages (rate cap, source-fit pre-filter, generator, capability validator, fit floor, queue insert), and the subtle dry_run behavior where validators still run and the 24h rate cap is still consulted. This is rich behavioral context that materially changes how an agent should call the tool.

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 uses labeled sections (When to use, When NOT to use, Sibling contrast, Side effects) that make the content scannable, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is slightly verbose — the internal task reference 'LED-1253' and the long pipeline enumeration could be trimmed — but every section earns its place with non-redundant information.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with an output schema, full schema coverage, and annotations present, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, selection criteria, exclusions, named alternatives, side effects, gating, and dry_run specifics. Return values are handled by the output schema, so the absence of that detail is not a gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by clarifying that dry_run suppresses only the queue insert while still running validators and consulting the rate cap, and by flagging tweet_id as 'Required' — important guidance since the schema shows an empty default but the tool is useless without it. A minor mismatch exists between the schema's default '' and the description's 'Required', but the net guidance is helpful rather than misleading.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Draft'), resource (Delimit-POV riff), and source (specific X tweet), plus the concrete use case of vendor-news surfacing. It also explicitly contrasts with named siblings: 'delimit_x_fetch fetches; delimit_vendor_news_health inspects subsystem health; this drafts a riff into the queue.' An agent can distinguish this from its siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Contains dedicated 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections that name exact alternatives: use delimit_x_fetch to fetch without drafting, and delimit_social_generate for general social drafting. The sibling contrast paragraph reinforces routing decisions. This is explicit, actionable guidance with nothing left to inference.

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