suppress_feature

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key trait: the operation is non-destructive ('hide without deleting') and reversible via suppressed=False. It omits what happens to child/dependent features of a suppressed parent and any active-document precondition, so it is not exhaustive for a mutation tool.

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 core purpose and the non-destructive qualifier are front-loaded in the first sentence, the discovery hint follows, and the argument notes are compact with zero filler. Nothing repeats the schema verbatim beyond the useful format example.

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?

Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists, and index discovery plus boolean semantics are covered. The gap is the multi-instance case ('instance' with a default) and lack of any note about which document is affected, both of which an agent calling into several connected Inventor sessions would want.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two most important parameters: 'indices' is defined as a comma-separated string with a concrete example, and 'suppressed' is defined by both boolean outcomes. The third parameter (instance) is not mentioned in the description, though the schema documents it.

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 features') and immediately distinguishes it from the closest sibling by qualifying 'hide without deleting', which separates it from delete_feature. An agent can pick between the two without opening either 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 tells the agent to call list_features() to obtain indices, which is the real prerequisite for correct invocation, and contrasts suppression with deletion. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. permanently removing a feature, or suppressing a parent with dependents).

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