adr_update_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the status change but fails to disclose permissions, reversibility, side effects, or validation of transitions.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and allowed transitions, second gives usage context. No superfluous information.

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 tool is simple but incomplete: no output schema description, no mention of transition validation (e.g., can status skip steps?), and no error conditions. The presence of sibling adr_accept suggests missing usage nuance.

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 50% (only status described). The description adds the transition path for status but does not clarify adrId format or constraints, partially compensating for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Change' and resource 'ADR status', and explicitly lists the allowed transitions (proposed → accepted → deprecated → superseded), making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from siblings like adr_accept.

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 when to use ('when an architectural decision is formally accepted, deprecated, or replaced') but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., adr_accept might be simpler for pure acceptance).

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