list_feature_cherry_pick_candidates

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing about permissions, output shape, or what 'isolatable' actually means. Worse, the injected tier/upsell text ('Everything in Free, plus calibration... Requires Kiln Pro') reads as marketing boilerplate unrelated to this tool, adding noise rather than behavioral context.

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 single purpose sentence is well front-loaded and concise, but it is followed by three lines of unrelated upgrade/pricing promotion that do not earn their place in a tool definition.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description would need to explain inputs and returns; instead it offers one terse sentence plus an ad. An agent has essentially nothing to act on beyond the tool name.

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?

Both parameters (ancestor_feature_version_id, source_feature_version_id) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what these IDs are, how to obtain them, or how the ancestor/source relationship affects results. The description fails entirely to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opening sentence, 'Enumerate isolatable modifications in source relative to ancestor,' gives a specific verb and a reasonably specific resource, so the agent can infer this lists cherry-pickable changes. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close siblings list_cherry_pick_candidates, list_decoration_cherry_pick_candidates, or cherry_pick_feature_modification, so the boundary between them is left to guesswork.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling candidate-listing and cherry-pick tools, and no workflow context (e.g. 'call before cherry_pick_feature_modification'). The 'Requires Kiln Pro' line is promotional rather than actionable usage guidance.

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