incorporate_research

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: false, so the description does not need to restate that this mutates state. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond a vague 'incorporate': it does not say whether ADR files are modified, whether updates are generated before being applied, whether confirmation is needed, or what side effects occur.

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 tight sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise, though this conciseness comes at the cost of omitting useful operational detail.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, 2 enums, no required parameters, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is inadequate. An agent cannot determine what inputs are needed, what 'incorporate' does mechanically, what output to expect, or how analysisType changes behavior.

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 input schema fully documents each parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond connecting 'research findings' to the researchFindings parameter and 'architectural decisions' to ADR-related parameters, but it does not clarify enums like analysisType or updateType.

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 ('incorporate') and resource ('research findings into architectural decisions'), but 'architectural decisions' is vague and does not explicitly say it updates ADR records. It is distinguishable from research-gathering siblings like perform_research, but not clearly differentiated from ADR generation/update tools without opening the schema.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as perform_research, generate_adr_from_decision, or request_action_confirmation. The description does not state that research should be gathered first, whether this tool updates existing ADRs, or what conditions would make a sibling tool more appropriate.

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