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

With annotations already covering mutation and safety hints, the description adds important behavioral detail: it marks the step done, advances the run, and explicitly does not press any step buttons, even onNext. The expectsStep caveat also discloses how concurrent movement is detected.

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 short and front-loaded: it starts with the core action, then explains the optional guard, then clarifies a key non-behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and rich schema descriptions, the definition covers the action, the concurrency guard, and the important side-effect boundary around step buttons. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic meaning for expectsStep by explaining it as a guard against another actor having already moved the run.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it marks the current step done and advances the run. The final sentence about not pressing buttons further clarifies the exact scope, distinguishing it from actions that would trigger step buttons.

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?

It gives clear usage context for expectsStep as an optimistic-concurrency guard: pass the step id you believe the run is on to detect if something else moved it first. It does not explicitly compare against siblings such as put_off_step or pause_run, so there is no full when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing guidance.

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