manage_features

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the operation targets the active part, and indices must be harvested from a prior list. It does not state that delete is destructive/irreversible, what happens to suppressed features in downstream rebuilds, or whether an active document is required.

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 single sentence followed by a compact per-argument block; every line earns its place. The framing of prose-and-Args-duplicating-schema is slightly wasteful but not confusing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but a destructive-capable mutation tool with zero annotations should still disclose reversibility and preconditions. The description covers two of three parameters and the basic workflow but leaves the risk profile of delete and suppress unstated.

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 33%, with just the instance parameter documented in the schema, so the description must compensate — and it does, giving the action vocabulary and the comma-separated indices format with a concrete example ("3,4,5"). It still doesn't say what index domain list returns or whether indices are stable across edits.

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 set (list/delete/suppress) and a specific resource (the active part's features), which is distinguishable from siblings like manage_parameters, manage_constraints, and manage_occurrences. It never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The Args block enumerates the valid actions and states that indices come from a prior list call, which implies the list-then-mutate workflow. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over manage_parameters/manage_occurrences, and no stated preconditions such as requiring an open part document.

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