Change the website features

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

The description discloses that changes affect the live chatbot behavior for every visitor, which is a significant side effect. It also reveals validation behavior ('A feature the plan does not include is refused') beyond what the annotations indicate, and does not contradict the destructiveHint or idempotentHint annotations.

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 compact at four sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The sentence 'A feature the plan does not include is refused with the plan it needs' is somewhat cryptic, but overall the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 the simple two-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what to update, how to pass values, the prerequisite read call, validation behavior, and the live impact. It stops short of enumerating all possible feature fields, but that is not necessary given the schema coverage.

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%, with both fields and website_id already described. The description adds the 'read them with get_website_features first' cue and examples, but does not materially expand beyond the schema's parameter explanations, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Turn website features on or off and set their values') and identifies the resource ('website features'), with concrete examples like Real-Time Data Feed URL and PII Redaction rules. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_website_features and update_widget_settings.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to call get_website_features first and to pass an object of field name to value, giving practical usage guidance. It does not explicitly compare with all alternative update tools, but the prerequisite and intended use are clear enough.

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