create_adr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently discloses several key behaviors: allocation of the next sequential number, writing a stub with placeholder text, and the lack of lock/retry for concurrent creation. However, it does not mention the return value/response format or potential error conditions, which leaves some behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, dense sentence that packs all essential information without fluff. The primary action ('Create a new ADR') is front-loaded, followed by precise details about the stub generation and the concurrency caveat. Every word earns its place, making it both succinct and structurally effective.

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's complexity (sequential numbering, placeholder sections, optional reindex) and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers most critical behavior. It does not describe the response/return value or error handling, but the auto_reindex parameter in the schema partially addresses response contents. Overall, it is fairly complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, with minor gaps.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., that title is used 'verbatim in the heading' is already in the schema's description). It does provide broader tool behavior context, but not extra parameter semantics, matching the baseline of 3.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource ('Create a new ADR') and goes into detail about what it does: allocate a sequential number, write a 'Proposed'-status stub with title and context, and fill remaining sections with placeholders. This distinguishes it from siblings like edit_adr, update_adr_status, and read_adr, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage is for creating a new ADR, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to edit vs. create, or when not to use it). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or mentions of sibling tools, so the agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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