Project MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Adds' and 'Creates' a structured entry, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, file overwrite behavior, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds necessary detail in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the action and structure without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's complexity (6 parameters, write operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and structure but omits critical behavioral details like mutation effects, error scenarios, and response expectations, which are needed for a tool of this type.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by listing the sections (title, context, decision, consequences) but doesn't provide additional syntax, format examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Adds'), resource ('a single architecture decision record (ADR)'), and target location ('to DECISIONS.md'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_or_update_decisions' by specifying it creates a structured entry with specific sections, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_or_update_decisions' or 'list_decisions'. It mentions creating a structured entry but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for choosing this tool over others in the server.

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