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

The description discloses key behaviors: the generated key, the initial status 'active', the default product when product_id is omitted, and the return fields. It adds context beyond the annotations, which are all false/neutral. No contradiction exists.

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, front-loads the primary purpose, and packs essential details about defaults and workflow without wasted words.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, but the description explicitly lists the return fields (id, key, name, status) and covers the required/optional behavior. It also places the tool in a workflow relative to create_task, making it contextually complete.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces that only name is required and restates the product_id default, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb-object pair ('Create a feature on the product spine') and clarifies the resource and output. It distinguishes create_feature from sibling tools like create_idea and create_task, which target different entities.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool ('create a feature here before linking tasks to it with create_task') and explains the optional product_id behavior for multi-product orgs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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