Delimit Control

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

Beyond annotations, the description clearly discloses that list/get are READ-ONLY, approve/reject append to the existing ~/.delimit/inbox_routing.jsonl store, reject stamps disposition="rejected", no new store is created, and idempotent re-approve no-ops. This aligns with and enriches the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations.

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 structured into clear labelled sections: purpose, when to use, when not to use, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every sentence adds information, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 multi-action tool with mixed read/write behavior, the description covers the shared-queue scope, action restrictions, side effects, sibling differentiation, and idempotency. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is already handled; nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds operational meaning by clarifying which actions apply to which item classes, listing example item id forms (att_…, STR-437, LED-1709, WO-…, DIR-…), and reinforcing that approve/reject only act on approval-class items.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Aggregate all governance lanes into one queue' and 'approve/reject approvals (LED-1709).' It also names the exact item classes (attestations, approvals, sensing STR-*, ops LED-*) and contrasts against four sibling tools, so an agent can distinguish it without ambiguity.

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 explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' guidance, including the Phase 1 restriction that approve/reject are approval-class only. It also gives sibling contrast naming delimit_agent_dashboard, delimit_ledger_context, and delimit_notify_inbox, telling the agent exactly when this tool is the right choice versus alternatives.

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