suppress_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the key behavioral trait that suppression rolls the feature AND its children out of the model, and that it is reversible rather than destructive. It omits finer details like rebuild/regeneration side effects, but the core behavioral profile is disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed by the one piece of clarifying behavioral detail that matters. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% param coverage, the description need only carry behavioral context, which it does (children affected, reversibility). Coverage is solid; only secondary details such as permission requirements or result effects are absent.

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% and the nested fields (name, suppress) are fully documented with examples and a default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond confirming the active-model scope, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Suppress or unsuppress a feature in the active model') and immediately distinguishes the operation from deletion, implicitly separating it from the delete_feature sibling. An agent can tell exactly 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?

Gives clear context for use ('the reversible way to turn off a feature that is causing trouble'), which frames when to reach for it over destructive alternatives. It does not name an explicit alternative or state a when-not condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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