ps_feature_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Set a feature flag' implies a mutation operation, but it lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies system state without any structured safety hints.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter details, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'feature flag' but doesn't explain what 'flag' and 'enabled' parameters represent, their formats, or examples. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, failing to clarify parameter meanings.

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 'Set a feature flag' clearly states the action (set) and resource (feature flag) with a specific verb. It distinguishes from sibling 'ps_feature_get' by indicating a write operation versus a read, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'set' tools like 'ps_confidence_set' or 'ps_config_set'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone without explicit direction.

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