Create ADR

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful side effects: a fresh id is assigned, the filename is derived from the title, the document is validated/rendered, and it is written to the ADR base directory. It does not cover failure modes (e.g. what happens if validation fails), overwrite protection, or permissions, leaving part of the mutation contract undeclared.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action first, then the pipeline in sequence. No filler, no redundancy, appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter meaning lives in the rich $defs descriptions. The description adequately covers the write pipeline for a create tool; only failure/overwrite behavior is left implicit given the absence of annotations.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter detail. However, the referenced $defs (AdrBody, AdrFrontmatter, AdrOption) carry exhaustive per-field documentation, so an agent reading the schema still gets full parameter meaning; the description itself contributes nothing here.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new ADR') and goes further by enumerating the operational pipeline: id assignment, filename derivation, validation, rendering, and write to the base directory. This distinguishes it from read/update siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the parallel create_* family (e.g. create_dec).

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 says what the tool does but never states when to use it versus alternatives such as edit, update, update_section, or the other create_* document tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing guidance is given.

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