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

Exceeds the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by specifying exactly what is destroyed (feature, preview, its data copy) and what is preserved (the lambda's own data). Adds refusal conditions, the docs/tests handoff requirement, and deploy timing — rich behavior beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three dense sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Sentences are long and clause-heavy, but virtually every clause carries actionable information rather than restating the name.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers destruction scope, preserved state, refusal conditions, the update_feature remedy, and deploy semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 real meaning for deploy ('puts the new version online at once; otherwise deploy it when the user wants it live') and contextualizes change/specification through the docs/tests framing.

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 precise verb+resource: makes a feature's files the next lambda version and deletes the feature with its preview and data copy. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_feature, deploy, and delete_feature, which it explicitly avoids overlapping with.

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 preconditions and refusals: refused while the feature is not based on the newest version (naming update_feature as the remedy) and while its code does not compile. Also routes deploy:true vs. deferred deployment, so the agent knows exactly when to call it and how.

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