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

The description reveals partial-update semantics (omitted fields unchanged), warns about the invalid 'shipped' status, and explains mark_shipped behavior and target_date null clearing. These details go beyond the annotations, which already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, and are fully consistent with them.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and partial-update behavior. Each sentence targets a specific gotcha without fluff, making it dense yet easy to parse.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: return value, partial updates, status restrictions, date format, and id resolution. Combined with the rich schema descriptions, it is fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between status and mark_shipped, confirming target_date format and null-clearing, and reinforcing that only id is required—clarifying subtle semantics not fully captured by the schema alone.

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 the tool 'Update a feature and return it', using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by highlighting feature-specific behaviors like the status/mark_shipped relationship and id resolution via list_features.

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?

It instructs to resolve the id via list_features, making the prerequisite explicit. It also clarifies when to use mark_shipped instead of a non-existent status. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create_feature or other update tools, though the context implies the intended use.

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