Manage ADR

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it is a destructive operation. But the description adds little behavioral detail, failing to disclose that 'update' replaces the entire ADR document or that get/sections are read-only modes. This underdiscloses the tool's full behavior.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue.

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?

The description is insufficient for a tool with three parameters, an enum, no output schema, and destructive behavior. It omits the get/sections modes, the full-replacement semantic of update, and any usage context. The schema provides some help, but the description should give a more complete overview.

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 descriptions cover 67% of parameters (mode and content), which is decent. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies; it does not compensate for the undocumented 'project' parameter.

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 identifies the tool as managing Architecture Decision Records with the verbs 'Create or update', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_architecture. However, it omits the 'get' and 'sections' modes present in the schema, making the purpose statement incomplete.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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