fusion_suppress_feature

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context—such as what suppression does to the timeline, whether it can be reversed, or any side effects. It relies on the user's prior knowledge.

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 containing only essential information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the verb and resource, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description omits important context such as the effect of suppression on the model, reversibility, and how it interacts with other features. It is minimal and expects prior knowledge of the CAD domain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by indicating that the 'name' parameter should be a feature name obtained from 'fusion_list_features'. However, it does not specify the data type or format of the name string, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Suppress'), the resource ('timeline feature'), and the method for identifying the feature ('by name (from fusion_list_features)'). This distinctly separates it from the sibling tool 'fusion_unsuppress_feature' which performs the opposite action.

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 indirect guidance by referencing 'fusion_list_features' as the source for valid names, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hiding a body) or mention any prerequisites or conditions. The usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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