embed_ledger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses layout switching, fallback from `panel` to `endnotes`, handling of unlocated or overlapping anchors, bibliography linking, and the fact that `out` is never overwritten. It also warns that `full` results contain whole quotes and should be kept private, though it does not cover all possible failure or permission conditions.

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 dense but front-loads the main action and then adds relevant behavioral details. It is long because the tool is complex and the schema lacks parameter descriptions, though some sentences are packed with multiple clauses that reduce readability.

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 tool is complex, has no annotations, and has 0% schema description coverage, so the description needs to do substantial work. It covers much of the behavior and output-related edge cases, but leaves key input parameters (`path`, `include_withdrawn`) and usage alternatives undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must document all six parameters, but it only partially covers `work`, `out`, `layout`, and indirectly `level`. It does not describe `path` or `include_withdrawn`, and it does not define the enum values for `level` beyond a reference to `summarize_ledger`.

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 specific verb and resource: write a copy of the work's HTML with each claim's anchor marked and linked to evidence. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from related siblings such as relink_html or export_ledger.

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 explains behavior but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose embed_ledger over alternatives like relink_html, export_ledger, or summarize_ledger. Constraints such as `out` never being overwritten are useful but do not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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