update_workspace_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the purpose and returns but does not disclose whether updates are partial or full, what the null default means, permission requirements, or side effects. For a mutation tool with no safety annotations, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a simple list of parameters and a return description. No extraneous content; every line serves a functional purpose.

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 tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it omits critical details about partial updates and the implication of null defaults, which are essential for correct invocation of a multi-option update tool. Lacks guidance on how the 'current workspace' is determined or whether features have dependencies.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly explains all six parameters as 'Enable/disable ... feature', adding meaning beyond the schema's bare boolean/null types. However, it does not clarify that null means 'leave unchanged' or that only provided parameters are updated, which would push it to a 5.

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 ('Update features of the current workspace') and specifies the resource as 'workspace features' in the tool name. It lists the exact feature toggles, distinguishing it from the sibling 'update_project_features' by the 'current 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 provides clear context by targeting 'current workspace', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool despite having a sibling 'update_project_features'. No exclusions are stated, so it falls short of a 5 but earns a 4 for clear implied scope.

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