Update Feature

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: 'omitted fields are unchanged' aligns with idempotency, and the clarification about no 'shipped' status versus mark_shipped provides additional transparency beyond annotations.

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, tightly packed with essential information, no fluff. It front-loads the core behavior ('Update a feature and return it; omitted fields are unchanged') and then adds specific notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 8 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral and parameter nuances. It mentions that the feature is returned but doesn't detail the response format. However, combined with schema descriptions, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description adds meaningful extra context beyond the schema: for status it explains 'there is NO 'shipped' status — set mark_shipped:true to stamp its ship date instead', and for target_date it specifies format and null clearing behavior. This significantly aids correct parameter usage.

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 'Update a feature and return it; omitted fields are unchanged.' It specifies the verb (update) and resource (feature), making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling update tools, the action is well-defined.

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 guidance: 'Resolve the id via list_features; only id is required.' It also warns about the 'shipped' status and directs to use mark_shipped instead. This helps the agent know when to use this tool and what prerequisites exist.

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