adr_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Create a new ADR' without mentioning side effects, required permissions, whether it overwrites duplicates, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a creation 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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it omits necessary details about parameters and usage, so it is not effectively concise—it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and multiple siblings, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what an ADR is, the role of parameters, or what the output is (output schema exists but not referenced). It misses critical context for correct invocation.

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%. The description only mentions 'title and optional content', but the schema has 6 parameters (title, type, context, decision, deciders, project_path). The description fails to explain the meaning or usage of most parameters, providing no added value over the schema.

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 states it creates a new ADR, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it vaguely says 'optional content' while the schema includes multiple specific fields like type, context, decision, etc. It distinguishes from siblings like adr_update and adr_list, but lacks precision.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as adr_update or adr_supersede. It does not mention prerequisites like project_path or any context for decision-making.

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