update_project_features

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains each parameter toggles a feature and indicates the return object, but does not clarify that null means 'leave unchanged', nor does it disclose any permissions or side effects. The workspace_slug parameter appears in the description but is absent from the schema, which adds confusion.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, Args block, and Returns line. Each parameter is on its own line, making it scannable. It is slightly repetitive with 'Enable/disable' repeated six times but remains efficient.

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 tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and parameter semantics, but misses critical context like partial update behavior (null = unchanged) and the workspace_slug/schema mismatch. The return type is stated, but without the output schema details, this is adequate but not complete.

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. It provides a meaning for each boolean parameter ('Enable/disable ...'), which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it lists workspace_slug which is not in the schema, and it doesn't explain null semantics, marking a slight deduction.

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 'Update features of a project' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the feature toggles (modules, cycles, views, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_features (read) and update_workspace_features (workspace scope).

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 project-level feature updates but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over update_workspace_features or how it relates to get_features. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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