suppress_feature

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description usefully adds that the change is reversible and that the feature is preserved in the tree, which softens what 'destructive' means here. It does not cover what happens to dependent/downstream features when a parent is suppressed, or the error case when the name doesn't match.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary verb and the parameter-driven variant arriving exactly where it is needed. The parenthetical is dense with useful meaning rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the mutation semantics, reversibility and boolean toggle are all covered for a two-parameter tool. The remaining gap is failure behavior (invalid feature name, suppression of a feature with children), which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It handles 'suppressed' well (default true, set False to restore) but leaves 'name' implicit — it never states whether this is a bare feature name, a tree path, or a unique identifier, which is the most likely source of invocation error.

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 (suppresses / restores) and resource (a feature), and explains the mechanism: removal from the model but retention in the feature tree. It also documents the inverse operation via suppressed=False. It stops short of naming delete_feature as the alternative, which is the one sibling an agent could easily confuse this with.

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 parenthetical 'keeping it in the tree' implicitly tells the agent this is the reversible option versus a permanent delete, and the suppressed=False branch clearly signals the restore use case. However, no sibling is named and no explicit 'use delete_feature for permanent removal' guidance is given, so the agent must infer the routing.

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