edit_adr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the destructive action ('Replace'), the exact target (top-level section), and a rejection case ('Rejects the Status section'). It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the core what-gets-changed behavior is clear.

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?

One tight sentence front-loads the action and target, then adds the single most important exception. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is replaced, at what heading level, and which use case is routed elsewhere. The auto-reindex behavior is already covered in the schema, leaving only minor omissions like behavior when the section does not exist.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description's reference to '## heading' mirrors the section parameter's meaning but adds no new syntax or format details beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Replace'), a precise resource ('a single named top-level (##) section of one ADR'), and a clear scope. It also draws an explicit boundary against the 'Status' section, which distinguishes it from update_adr_status at a glance.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative for status transitions—'use update_adr_status instead'—so an agent knows exactly when not to use this tool. The 'top-level (##)' qualifier also clarifies that this is not for editing nested or non-heading content.

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