cockpit_create_adr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the destination file ('decisions.md'), but for a write operation it says nothing about whether the file is created if absent, whether records are appended or overwritten, ordering, permissions, or whether the write is reversible.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then the destination, then the rationale. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the definition is thin for a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema descriptions. It arguably omits only the input-field guidance, but that omission is large enough to leave the definition materially incomplete.

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% across 5 parameters, and several parameter names (context, decision, consequence) are ambiguous without domain framing. The description explains none of them, so an agent gets no help mapping intended content to the correct fields beyond general ADR familiarity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Records a new Architecture Decision Record') plus the target artifact ('decisions.md'), which clearly separates it from siblings like cockpit_add_task or cockpit_toggle_task. The stated rationale ('to prevent conflicting implementations') adds intent, though it stops short of naming an alternative tool.

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 phrase 'to prevent conflicting implementations' implies the situation that motivates recording an ADR, so usage is weakly inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no reference to any sibling tool, leaving the agent to infer the trigger.

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