Delimit Work Orders

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

The annotations only provide tool-level readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful per-action behavioral disclosure: action='list'/'show' are read-only while action='complete' writes to the work-order store via ai.work_order.complete_work_order. This goes beyond the annotations and tells the agent exactly which invocations have side effects.

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 organized into clear labeled sections (purpose, when to use, when not to use, sibling contrast, side effects) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place; the sibling contrast slightly overlaps with 'when NOT to use', but it adds concrete named alternatives rather than pure repetition.

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?

With an output schema present (return values are covered), zero required parameters, and a description covering purpose, usage boundaries, sibling differentiation, and per-action side effects, there is nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly that is missing. The reference to STR-177 is minor noise but 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 schema already documents all four parameters well. The description adds value by mapping action values to side-effect behavior (read-only vs write) and connecting note/wo_id to the 'complete' action, which is beyond the schema. It doesn't elaborate on status filter nuances or wo_id format, so it doesn't reach 5.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair — 'Manage work orders' — and immediately elaborates the concrete actions: 'to list, read, or close work orders'. It frames work orders as 'structured task artifacts for the founder' and explicitly contrasts with ledger and governance tools, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

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 has explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections. It names concrete alternatives (delimit_ledger_* for ledger items, delimit_gov_new_task / run / verify for governance tasks) and explains the boundary. This is exactly the kind of routing guidance that lets an agent pick the right tool.

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