users-set_features

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive behavior ('Replaces the entire features list') and authentication requirement ('admin only'). It does not mention side effects like notifications or scope requirements, but for a simple mutation tool, it provides sufficient behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and key constraints. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and few parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, that it replaces features, and that it requires admin privileges. It could mention potential error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., user must exist), but overall it provides adequate context for a simple mutation tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with good descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the replacement behavior and admin restriction, which applies to the tool's parameters. This context enhances understanding of how the parameters are used, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 'Sets the enabled features for a user', specifying the action and resource. It adds 'admin only' and 'Replaces the entire features list', which distinguishes it from incremental update tools like users-update_profile. The verb 'set' combined with 'replaces' clarifies the behavior, making it distinct from siblings like users-get_features.

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 explicitly mentions 'admin only', indicating who can use it. It clarifies that it replaces the entire features list, which guides usage for full updates rather than partial changes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as using users-enable for toggling individual features.

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