update_aws_feature

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds negative behavioral constraints (no Firestore updates, no CloudFormation stack ID, no StackSet member role ARNs), which is useful. However, it does not disclose what destructive changes occur to existing enabled features or account state.

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 short, but the opening sentence 'Manage cloud provider connections and check feature availability for connected accounts' is vague and does not earn its place for an update-specific tool. The remaining two sentences are focused and useful, but the first sentence adds noise.

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?

No output schema is present, and the description does not explain return values or the effect of updating enabledFeatures (e.g., whether omitted features are disabled). It provides some context via the CloudFormation contrast, but for a destructive update tool, it should clarify what changes are applied to the existing CloudConnect account.

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 80%, and the schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions, especially for enabledFeatures and the conditional s3Bucket/s3BucketRegion requirements. The tool description itself adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 core action: 'Updates an AWS feature for an existing CloudConnect account.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. The first sentence is broader and somewhat generic, but the second sentence disambiguates the tool from feature-checking and CloudFormation-related operations.

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 provides useful exclusions: 'Unlike the CloudFormation variant, this endpoint does not update Firestore channel documents, require a CloudFormation stack ID, or handle StackSet member role ARNs.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool, though it does not name the exact sibling alternative or give explicit positive usage conditions.

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