Plan safe pattern adoption

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the plan is evidence-gated, starts with a baseline and smallest production slice, and includes exit criteria and rollback. 'Create' refers to generating a plan artifact, not a side-effecting mutation, so there is no contradiction.

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 two front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and constraints, and the second concisely lists the deliverable's required components.

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 description tells the caller what the plan will contain and conveys the evidence-gating requirement, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it does not describe the output format, explain how to populate `case`, or address potential edge cases for a complex nested input. This leaves important gaps for an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only elaborates the `pattern` parameter with 'one named pattern' and leaves the complex `case` object unaddressed. Given that `case` has many nested fields and no descriptions, the description provides minimal help for parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Create'), a concrete resource ('reversible, evidence-gated adoption plan'), and a scope ('one named pattern'). It also enumerates plan components, which distinguishes it from siblings like compare_pattern_options or write_pattern_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 description clearly implies the tool is for planning adoption of a single, already-selected pattern, with evidence-gating and reversibility as requirements. However, it never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives, and it does not mention any sibling tools or exclusion conditions.

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