Update ADR Section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It hints at destructive semantics ('replace/delete') and whole-field granularity, but omits required permissions, irreversibility, interaction with frontmatter, and failure modes for a mutation tool.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but it is under-specified rather than front-loaded with actionable information. The '(plan §4)' citation is wasted words for an agent.

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 tool takes three required params at 0% coverage, mutates content destructively ('replace/delete'), has no annotations, and has a rich sibling set to be distinguished from. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description still falls well short of enough to call it 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'id', 'key', or 'value' mean. 'key' clearly designates an AdrBody field, and 'value' its content, yet neither is defined; the undocumented 3-param contract leaves the agent guessing about valid keys or value format.

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 restates the name ('update' = replace/delete) and adds only 'of one AdrBody field' as scope. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'update', 'edit', or 'update_frontmatter', and the odd reference '(plan §4)' provides no agent-usable meaning.

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 alternative guidance is present. With siblings such as update, edit, and update_frontmatter, the agent has no basis to select this tool over them.

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