update_workspace_features

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds only that it 'updates features', which is consistent but does not provide additional behavioral context such as scope of changes (e.g., affects all projects) or potential side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-line summary, a list of parameters with explanations, and a return type statement. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no redundant 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?

Given that there is an output schema and all parameters are optional, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and parameters. However, it lacks usage context or guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, which is a gap for completeness. Still, the tool is simple and the main details are covered.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. Each parameter is explained with 'Enable/disable [feature] feature', which adds clear meaning beyond the raw boolean/null type. However, it lacks details like default behavior or interaction between parameters, which could be useful. This is a solid addition but not exhaustive.

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 the current workspace', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_project_features' by explicitly mentioning workspace. The argument list further clarifies the exact features affected.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_project_features' or other feature-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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