patchFlag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it modifies properties without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. 'Modify' implies mutation but lacks critical safety and operational context for a patch 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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and method without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral expectations, and output, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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 but only vaguely references 'JSON Patch operations' without explaining parameters like 'patches', 'featureName', or 'projectId'. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to fully address 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 description clearly states the action ('Modify specific properties'), target resource ('existing feature flag in an Unleash project'), and method ('using JSON Patch operations'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'updateFlag' by specifying patch-based modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

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 description implies usage for partial modifications via JSON Patch, suggesting when to use this over full updates like 'updateFlag'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or clear alternatives among siblings like 'enableFlag' or 'disableFlag' for simpler operations.

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