feature_implement

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates instances, creates scripts, sets up remotes, and verifies, but it does not state whether existing scripts/instances are overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, or what side effects occur if optional script/remotes params are omitted.

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?

A single sentence front-loaded with the [WORKFLOW] signal and a compact enumeration of phases; no padding. The dense comma-separated action list loses some structure but remains quick to scan.

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 six-parameter autonomous workflow with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits expected outcome, failure modes, prerequisites, and use conditions. It gives a phase list but not enough context for an agent to know what inputs are needed or what the result looks like.

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 already documents all six parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a high-level mapping between its workflow and the script/remote parameter categories, but offers no additional detail about how featureName/description drive generation or how optional code parameters are used.

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?

Description uses a concrete verb workflow and enumerates the main actions: planning, instantiating instances, writing scripts, setting up remotes, and verifying. It is clearly about implementing a full feature rather than querying or editing a single object. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from similar high-level siblings like game_build_feature or feature_verify.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, trigger conditions, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives are provided. '[WORKFLOW]' hints at a high-level operation, but an agent cannot tell when feature_implement should be chosen over sibling tools such as game_build_feature, feature_verify, or component_compose.

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