save_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits — versioning (a new version is created) and a Kiln Pro entitlement requirement — but says nothing about permissions, what happens on name collision, whether an existing feature is mutated, or how the four required fields behave on failure.

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 operative sentence is front-loaded and efficient, and the entitlement line is short. The third and fourth sentences are marketing/upgrade copy that earns no place in a tool definition an agent uses to decide and invoke.

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?

This is a 10-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 10% schema coverage — the description should explain the new-vs-append branch, required identity fields, and permissions. Instead it spends its remaining words on a pricing link, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly without reverse-engineering the schema.

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 only 10% across 10 parameters with nested objects, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only the vague "append to existing" can be loosely mapped to feature_id/parent_feature_version_id; name, feature_kind, parameters, target_kind, and design_id get no meaning beyond their bare titles. The trailing upsell URL contributes nothing.

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?

"Save a new versioned mechanical feature (or append to existing)" gives a verb and a resource, but the second sentence muddies it by describing the same call as saving "a reusable feature or decoration preset," and there is a sibling save_decoration that makes that ambiguity costly. No sibling differentiation is offered among save_decoration, create_feature_branch, rename_feature, or archive_feature.

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 parenthetical "(or append to existing)" is the only usage hint, and it never says which parameter selects append-vs-new or when to prefer this over save_decoration / create_feature_branch. "Requires Kiln Pro" gates the tool but does not guide selection relative to alternatives.

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