feature_execute

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

With only readOnlyHint=false, the description does add real value: it discloses atomic mutation of active drawing state, full rollback on failure, and optimistic locking via the expected predecessor fingerprint. Beyond that it omits what a rollback means for already-created entities, permission/auth needs, and how idempotency via correlation_id actually behaves on retry, so the disclosure is partial.

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 core action and clearly segmented into Side-effects and Disambiguation labels, with no filler sentences. Slight deduction for vague jargon such as 'generic feature' and 'micro-chunk' that is never unpacked.

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?

Covers the transactional contract (atomicity, rollback, optimistic locking) for a 6-required-parameter mutation tool, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. It stops short of describing what action types the actions array accepts or how correlation_id idempotency resolves conflicts.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the coupling of document_pid and expected_parent_fp as a version-bound transaction but adds no new format, constraint, or failure semantics beyond what the schema fields state.

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 ('Execute') and resource ('one complete generic feature'), plus the transactional scope bounded to document PID and predecessor fingerprint. It implicitly differentiates from the batch_* siblings by calling itself the 'preferred route for multi-step feature creation', but it never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

'Preferred route for multi-step feature creation' gives a clear positive condition for selecting this tool over the single-step entity/block tools. However, no exclusion or counter-case is given (e.g., when to use batch_create_entities or transaction_begin instead), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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