Update feature flag metadata

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

The destructiveHint annotation already communicates mutation, and the description adds useful context by scoping the mutation to metadata and naming immutable fields. However, it does not explain destructive consequences, whether updates overwrite or merge, or any permission requirements. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action and affected fields are front-loaded, immutability constraints are stated immediately after, and routing to alternatives is deferred to the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 metadata mutation tool with destructiveHint, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally viable but not complete. It does not state whether at least one update field is required, how tags are applied, or what the response contains, leaving the agent to guess on edge cases.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, but it merely lists four editable field names and says key/type are immutable. It does not clarify meanings such as clientSideVisible, the structure of tags, or the role of the required project parameter. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('flag metadata'), enumerates exactly which fields are affected (name/description/tags/clientSideVisible), and explicitly distinguishes itself from behavior-changing siblings. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 routes behavior changes to toggle_flag/update_targeting, and states that key and type are immutable, which implicitly warns against trying to modify them. This gives the agent clear selection criteria versus sibling tools.

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