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

The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it explains that this is a write-tier operation, notes approval behavior (from-now-on vs just-once), and instructs the agent on call timing. This aligns with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and there is no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core action and trigger phrases, followed by a compact approval-workflow note. Each sentence earns its place, though the bracketed block is dense and slightly cryptic ('the card is the yes').

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 the stated ready-for-marketing purpose, the description is complete: it covers when to use, how to handle approvals, and the required parameters are fully documented in the schema. It omits the alternative 'draft' status and return-value behavior, but these are outside the stated primary use case.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on feature_id, companyId, or the status enum values beyond implying 'ready_to_market'. It adds no parameter-level meaning that the schema doesn't already provide.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Mark a feature as ready for marketing.' It includes concrete trigger phrases ('mark X as ready', 'this feature is ready to market') that make the tool's intent unambiguous. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like update_feature or retire_feature, so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is clearly distinct.

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 explicit when-to-use criteria with user utterance examples and adds operational guidance ('Call it on the first clear ask; the card is the yes — do not re-ask in chat'). It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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