create_or_update_roadmap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions merging behavior but does not detail the 'intelligent' merge logic, possible side effects, or failure scenarios. Essential behavioral traits like file locking or permission requirements are absent.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that cover purpose, usage context, and merge behavior. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the primary function and merge behavior. However, it omits details about return values, error handling, and edge cases like empty content or file creation failures.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the notion of 'intelligent merging', but this is vague and does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates/updates the ROADMAP.md file in the .project/ directory. While it differentiates from siblings by specifying a separate file, it does not explicitly contrast with tools like 'add_roadmap_milestone' or 'create_or_update_decisions'.

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 advises using this tool 'when planning future work, milestones, or phases', providing context. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as using 'add_roadmap_milestone' for adding specific milestones.

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