option_createAppend a new 'Option N: ...' sub-section to plan §5 of a MADR-based ADR and return its assigned full title. Use it to add structured decision options to specifications.
Append a new 'Option N: ...' sub-section (plan §5), returning its assigned full title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| partial_title | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.36.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is additive ('append') and that it returns the assigned full title, which is useful. However, it omits whether an existing ADR/id must already exist, permission requirements, and any side effects on numbering or existing options.
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 with the action verb first and no wasted words. The return-value note is folded in efficiently.
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 the return format need not be explained. But for a three-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too thin: it leaves every parameter's meaning and all preconditions unstated.
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 0% and all three parameters (id, value, partial_title) are undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'assigned full title' loosely hints that partial_title is expanded into 'Option N: ...', but id and value are entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource: 'Append a new Option N sub-section', which distinguishes it from the sibling option_update/option_delete/option_read/option_list operations by implying creation. It also names the return value (assigned full title). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the action is 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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given. The domain reference '(plan §5)' implies the ADR context but does not tell the agent when this tool should be chosen over option_update or option_list. Usage is only inferable from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.