create_feature_flag

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation and requires specific permissions, but fails to describe side effects (e.g., idempotency, constraints) or the return value. Some behavioral context is provided but insufficient.

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 very concise with two sentences, no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and appends requirements. While efficient, it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing required fields explicitly).

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 complexity (3 params, nested object) and lack of output schema, the description provides essential purpose and requirements but omits details like expected return value or error conditions. Adequate but not thoroughly 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds minimal value beyond schema descriptions. It lists fields inside the flag object, but the schema already includes a detailed description for the flag parameter. 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 action 'Create a flag in a feature' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_feature and create_feature_project by specifying the resource type (flag). The '(WRITE)' tag further clarifies the operation type.

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 necessary prerequisites (scope and environment variable), but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_feature_flag, nor does it specify when not to use it. The context is clear but incomplete.

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