update_project_features

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds little beyond confirming update behavior. No contradictions, but the description does not enrich understanding of side effects or safety 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 succinct with clear Args and Returns sections, every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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?

While the output schema exists and parameters are described, the description claims a workspace_slug parameter that is absent from the input schema, indicating a mismatch. No guidance on authentication, rate limits, or prerequisites, making it incomplete for a mutation tool with boolean toggles.

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 0%, but the description explains each parameter with a brief purpose (e.g., 'modules: Enable/disable modules feature'), adding meaning that the schema (types only) does not provide. However, workspace_slug is listed in the description but missing from the input schema, causing confusion.

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 features of a project' and lists specific feature toggles (modules, cycles, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_project (project metadata) and update_workspace_features (workspace-level).

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 implies usage for enabling/disabling project features but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, nor provides prerequisites or exclusions. It is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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