Update ADR Frontmatter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does convey that this is a destructive full replacement and that the existing id survives, which usefully resolves the schema's "omit a key to drop it" ambiguity for the id key. It says nothing about validation, error behavior, required permissions, or side effects on the file.

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 no padding — the replace semantics come first, which is the most important fact. The parenthetical "(plan §3)" is internal-doc noise an agent cannot act on.

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 nested frontmatter schema covers field-level detail. What is missing is anything about the required top-level `id`, failure modes, or how this differs from the other ADR mutation tools, leaving meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds almost no parameter meaning beyond the note that the id is preserved. The nested AdrFrontmatter $defs happens to document its fields richly, but the tool description itself does not explain the required top-level `id` (resolution key) or the replacement semantics of the `frontmatter` object.

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 ("Whole-object replace of an ADR's frontmatter") and even pins the update contract, so it is distinguishable from a partial editor. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like `update`, `update_section`, `set_status`, or `set_classification`, which all also mutate an ADR.

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 phrase "whole-object replace" implicitly warns against using this for partial edits, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, prerequisite, or named alternative among the many sibling mutation tools. An agent must infer the choice.

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