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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive write; the description adds that it mutates shared team data and that partial updates are the norm, plus that closure is out of scope. It does not mention the design-deletion side effect of designUnlink, which is only visible in the schema, but it goes beyond the annotations on the mutation model.

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?

Front-loads the field list and the partial-update rule, and every sentence earns its place. The single long opening sentence is dense, which slightly hurts scanability, but nothing is wasted.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutable fields, the partial-update semantics, the closure exclusion, and even the return payload (link, product, version, ord, specRevision, changed fields). Selection and invocation are fully supported; only the design-unlink side effect remains outside the description.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description contributes the partial-update contract ('only passed fields change') and the semantic framing of version as a move and ord as a position, which the schema does not state as plainly. That is real added meaning on top of the already thorough schema.

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 (Updates) and resource (a feature) and enumerates the mutable fields including the non-obvious moves (versionID) and ordering (ord). An agent can separate this from feature_create, feature_delete, and feature_list without opening any 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?

Gives explicit scope ('only passed fields change') and an explicit exclusion ('closing a feature is a human decision, not available here'), which is exactly the kind of when-not guidance that helps selection. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the excluded operation, so it is not a full 5.

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