Delimit Memory Index

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by detailing exact side effects: writes to target_path, marker-based replacement semantics, append behavior when markers are absent, file creation when missing, and one-way projection with format-drift risk. This is exemplary transparency for a tool that modifies files.

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 well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. It is longer than average but the side-effect detail is necessary for safe invocation. The trailing 'LED-1165 Phase 2 #5 PR-B.' reference is internal metadata that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool with complex file-writing behavior, the description covers when to use it, when not to use it, exact file mutation behavior, marker handling, default path, and the one-way projection constraint. With an output schema present, no return-value documentation is needed. The description is fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, though it does reinforce the default target path in the side-effects section.

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 and resource: 'Project delimit_memory hot entries into Claude Code's MEMORY.md.' This states exactly what the tool does and distinguishes it from memory-store, search, and recent siblings by positioning it as the one-way projection tool.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' guidance, naming the exact alternatives: delimit_memory_store, delimit_memory_search, and delimit_memory_recent. The sibling contrast reinforces the routing decision, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool should be selected.

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