Update feature flag metadata

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

With only destructiveHint=true declared, the description adds real value: partial-update semantics ('changes only the fields you pass and keeps the rest'), the empty-string convention for clearing description, and the immutability of key and type. It does not address permissions or reversibility, but nothing contradicts the annotation.

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?

Three tight sentences with the mutable-field scope front-loaded, then merge semantics, then sibling exclusions. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool this covers the important unknowns: which fields change, that others persist, clearing behavior, and immutability. Missing only auth/permission requirements and any confirmation or rate-limit notes.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it enumerates the mutable fields, states that omitted fields are preserved, and specifies the description-clearing convention. It leaves project unspecified and refers to an immutable 'key'/'type' that do not appear as parameters, which is a minor mismatch.

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?

Specific verb (Update) plus resource (flag) plus the exact field set it can change, which immediately separates it from toggle_flag and update_targeting. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes behavior changes to toggle_flag / update_targeting, which is the key sibling disambiguation for this tool. It stops short of stating when to use this tool versus delete_flag, archive_flag, or update_flag_environment_config, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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