delimit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Mark as done' implies a state change (likely a mutation), the description doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, side effects, or error conditions. It mentions auto-detection for 'venture' but lacks broader behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured parameter explanation. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description does a good job covering the basics: purpose and parameter semantics. However, for a mutation tool, it lacks behavioral details like error handling or side effects, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining all three parameters: 'item_id' is the item ID with examples, 'note' is an optional completion note, and 'venture' is a project name/path with auto-detection behavior. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could provide more detail on formats or constraints.

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 action ('Mark a ledger item as done') and identifies the resource ('ledger item'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling ledger tools like 'delimit_ledger_add' or 'delimit_ledger_list', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools (e.g., 'delimit_ledger_add', 'delimit_ledger_list'), there's no indication of when marking an item as done is appropriate versus other ledger operations, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints.

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