backlog_supersede_adr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It highlights preserving lineage, a key behavioral trait, but omits details like whether the superseded ADR is deleted or archived, permission requirements, or side effects. The description adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and condition. No extraneous words; every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and sparse parameter descriptions, the description does not cover return values, error conditions, or the full behavioral effect (e.g., what happens to the superseded ADR). For a write operation, more completeness would be beneficial given the low schema coverage.

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 coverage is 33% (only 'as' has a description in schema), and the tool description adds no additional meaning to parameters. The description does not explain what superseded_id and replacement_id represent beyond their names, relying on the schema's minimal metadata.

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 clearly states the tool's action: superseding an ADR while preserving lineage. It distinguishes from siblings like backlog_accept_adr or backlog_delete by focusing on replacement with lineage preservation.

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 specifies when to use ('when a newer ADR replaces an accepted or living ADR'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude other cases or mention alternatives, but the condition is well-defined.

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