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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the step type cannot be changed, field availability is type-dependent, new text affects only following sends in running campaigns, conditions are UI-only, and the return includes before/after/verified.

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 front-loaded and dense with operational constraints rather than filler. Including the return fields is slightly redundant because an output schema exists, but the description remains efficient overall.

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 destructive 8-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, it covers key field/type behavior and campaign side effects, but leaves campaign_id and validate_only unexplained. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description is not fully complete for callers.

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 0% with 8 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It maps subject, message/Text, delay, title, step_id, and workspace, but omits any explanation of required campaign_id and the validate_only parameter, leaving important gaps.

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 (ändern) and resource (Sequenzschritt), explicitly lists subject, message, delay, and title, and says step_id comes from lemlist_get_sequence. The update framing and note that the step type remains fixed distinguish it from add/delete/get sequence-step operations.

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?

Explains the prerequisite that step_id comes from lemlist_get_sequence, that which fields work depends on the step type with a pointer to lemlist_create_campaign, that running campaigns apply new text to following sends, and that conditions can only be changed in the lemlist UI. It does not explicitly name when-not or sibling alternatives, but the operational context is clear.

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