Turn a feature toggle on or off

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the key side effect (first change to a web.config/metadata feature creates a DB row that then takes precedence over the source), the return payload shape, and the meaning of partial failures (`feature_state_not_applied:<code>` vs `cacheCleared: false` with the advice to tell the user). This is exactly the durable-state context an agent needs for a destructive, idempotent mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then precedence semantics, then return/error handling — no filler sentences. It is dense but every clause carries behavioral information; slightly more compact phrasing would make it a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the returned feature object plus `cacheCleared` and the error code case. With precedence rules and the failure-mode interpretation included, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation and follow-up.

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% and the schema already explains code, state enum values (including that "inherit" needs adminUnitId), and the SysAdminUnit id format. The description adds little new parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Change a feature's default state, or override it for one user/role") with scope ("features from any source"), which immediately separates it from read-only siblings like get-feature and list-features. An agent can identify exactly what this tool mutates.

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 clear operational context: omit adminUnitId to change the global default, use "inherit" to remove an override, and points to get-guide: feature-toggle-guide for deeper guidance. It doesn't explicitly contrast with refresh-feature-cache or state when a cache refresh is needed as a follow-up, so it falls short of a 5.

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