update_project_features

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'update', implying mutation, but lacks details such as whether the operation is idempotent, side effects of disabling features (e.g., data loss), partial update behavior, or authorization requirements. The agent is left to infer from the schema.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence of four words. It is front-loaded and contains no extra fluff. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity; while concise, it could afford to expand minimally to add context.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, output schema exists but undescribed, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, potential errors, or the effect of null parameters. The agent lacks critical context for using the tool 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Enable/disable epics feature'). The schema already provides sufficient semantic context for each parameter.

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 'Update features of a project' clearly identifies the verb (update) and the resource (features of a project). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_project_features' (read vs write) and 'update_workspace_features' (scope: project vs workspace). However, it does not explicitly list which features are updatable, relying on the schema to provide that detail.

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. For example, there is no mention that 'get_project_features' should be used to view current settings before updating, or that 'update_workspace_features' is for workspace-level features. An agent has no context for tool selection beyond the tool name.

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