Unsuppress Feature

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

Annotations declare this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail — that batch input triggers a single recompute — but says nothing about what happens if the feature is already unsuppressed or what the call returns.

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?

One efficiently constructed sentence with the batch-recompute behavior placed immediately after the action. No padding, though it is arguably too sparse for a mutation tool.

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?

With no output schema, no permission/auth guidance, and an undocumented single-feature parameter, the description leaves real gaps for a state-changing tool. An agent cannot tell whether both parameters can be combined or what a partial failure looks like.

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 50%: feature_names is documented in the schema, feature_name is not. The description reinforces the batch semantics ('recomputes once for the whole batch') but does not explain the single feature_name parameter or whether the two are mutually exclusive.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource ('Unsuppress (re-enable) one or more timeline features'), and the parenthetical disambiguates the term. It does not name suppress_feature as the inverse operation, but the action is unambiguous on its own.

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 inverse relationship to suppression is implied but never stated, and no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent can infer when to use it, but nothing confirms it must point at a previously suppressed feature.

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