Update Feature Flag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the mutation and safety profile. The description adds minimal context (that it targets an existing flag), but doesn't disclose partial-update semantics, null-field behavior, or failure modes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler: 'Update an existing feature flag's fields.' It is structurally efficient and every word contributes meaning, though additional sentences could have enriched it without bloat.

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 7-parameter update tool with nullable enablement settings and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It omits return values, null-clearing semantics, prerequisites (the key must exist), and how enabled_for_envs/plans/roles combine. The schema and annotations carry most of the burden, and the description leaves important gaps.

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 71% (covers key, description, and the enabled_for_* fields), but is_visible and is_accessible are undocumented in the schema, and the tool description adds nothing about parameters. It doesn't clarify what the booleans control, how null values behave, or how the enabled_for_* lists interact, so it fails to compensate for the mid-range coverage gap.

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 'Update an existing feature flag's fields' clearly states the action (update), the resource (feature flag), and scope (existing resource's fields), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/delete/get feature flag. It is specific enough to identify the operation, though it doesn't enumerate which fields or add detail beyond the title.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_feature_flag, get_feature_flag_admin, or delete_feature_flag. The word 'existing' weakly implies the flag must already exist, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use information.

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