Add an architecture decision record

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

The description discloses append-only behavior, auto-numbering (ADR-<n>), and that relevant ADRs surface in work packets. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with this, and the description adds useful context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and appends key details. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and key constraints. It does not mention return values or error handling, but for an append tool with no output schema, this is adequate. Minor room for improvement.

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 coverage is 83%, close to the high threshold. The description broadly maps to the parameters but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., that 'tickets' is an array). Qualitative context is limited.

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 it appends a new ADR to a project's decision log, specifies the fields (context, decision, consequences, tickets), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_decisions. The verb 'append' and resource are explicit.

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 clear context: it is append-only and never rewrites prior ADRs. It also hints at the value of ADRs surfacing in ticket work packets. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for editing or viewing decisions.

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