manage_adr

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'create or update' but does not explain if operations are destructive, require specific permissions, or how multiple requests interact. Missing details on what happens during each mode.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks necessary detail to be informative, crossing into under-specification rather than efficient brevity.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what each parameter does, what the mode values mean, or what the tool returns. An AI agent would lack sufficient information to invoke 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 0% (no descriptions in schema), so the description should compensate. It only implies that 'content' relates to the ADR, but does not explain the role of 'project', 'mode', or 'sections'. The enum values are not described.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Create or update Architecture Decision Records') which clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_project or get_architecture by focusing on ADRs specifically.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs update, or how mode affects behavior). The enum values in mode (get, update, sections) suggest distinct operations, but the description does not clarify their contexts.

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