Update a feature

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

With no annotations beyond the title, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral requirement that the whole feature JSON must be posted, not a partial update. However, it does not mention other potential side effects, idempotency, or error conditions. This is adequate but minimal, so a 3.

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 two short sentences that front-load the action and purpose, with no fluff. Every word contributes: the verb, the resource, an example, and the critical posting requirement.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and the key behavioral requirement, but it does not mention the typical workflow of first fetching the current feature via get_features before modifying. This is a notable gap that could leave an agent guessing. Thus a 3.

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% for all 5 parameters. The description adds an example use case and reiterates the 'whole feature JSON' requirement, but the schema already states 'The full replacement feature JSON.' Thus the description adds marginal semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is correct.

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 (Replace) and the resource (an existing feature's payload), with a concrete example (change a dimension). It is distinct from sibling tools like onshape_add_feature and onshape_delete_feature because 'replace' implies modification of an existing 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 description implies usage for modifying existing features but does not explicitly contrast with adding or deleting features. It gives a clear context (replace to change dimensions) but no exclusions or mention of when not to use it. Since it's clear but lacks explicit alternative routing, a 4 is appropriate.

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