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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations: it discloses atomic in-order application, optimistic-concurrency refusal of stale writes, cascade deletion for remove, the hands-off protection rule (features and descendants), and the browser-editing lock. This is exactly the behavioral context a mutation tool needs.

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 core operations and packs constraints into a dense paragraph with no filler. It is a single long run-on rather than clearly separated bullets, which slightly hurts scanability, but every clause carries required 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?

For a complex no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers atomicity, revision semantics (including the returned revision for chaining), protection rules, and concurrency refusals. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 adds meaning the schema does not: parentId null means top level, remove deletes the entire subtree, update accepts name and/or description, and move takes an optional position. These are real semantics layered on the structured fields.

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 (Change) and resource (a project's features) and enumerates the four supported operations (add, update, move, remove) with their sub-semantics. An agent can immediately distinguish this from the read-side sibling get_features and from the update_* family for other resources.

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?

Explains how to use it contextually: changes must be based on baseRevision from get_features, and large restructures should be split into several calls each using the revision the previous one returned. It does not name a competing alternative tool, but no sibling offers feature editing, so the guidance is effectively complete for routing.

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