Toggle pastel feature

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful context: keys are free-form and persisted in femboy://state, implying arbitrary keys may be created. It does not state error behavior for bad keys or whether toggling affects other state.

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?

Two compact sentences, action and scope front-loaded, examples parenthetical rather than bulked out. No wasted text.

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 two-parameter, well-annotated, non-destructive idempotent toggle with a fully described schema and no output schema, this is close to sufficient. The only meaningful gap is what happens when the supplied feature key does not already exist.

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% and the schema already provides illustrative keys and the true/false semantics for enabled. The description's only real addition is 'free-form keys', clarifying that the feature parameter is not an enumeration, which is a minor but genuine contribution over the schema.

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 and resource: turning a pastel feature flag on or off, with concrete example flags so the agent knows the domain. No sibling tool overlaps with flag toggling, so no differentiation is strictly needed, though it never explicitly says this is the only flag-mutation entry point.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the enabled boolean, but there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance, no note about what happens for an unknown key, and no mention of alternatives or read-only counterparts (e.g. recalling state via femboy_recall).

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