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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, non-open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing PATCH-style partial-update semantics, the coupling between updatable fields and step type, and the immutability of step_type. It does not address permissions or effects on an already-active sequence, which would have pushed this higher.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information (what it does, what is editable, what is not).

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral constraints an agent needs before calling it. It could say more about the result and whether the sequence must be paused, but no critical pre-call information 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by mapping parameters to step types (delay_value on a delay step, email_template_id on an email step), which the schema lists as flat properties without this cross-field applicability guidance.

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 and resource ('Edit an existing step's fields') and adds scope qualifiers (PATCH-style, field-level). Combined with the explicit note that step_type is immutable, an agent can distinguish this from meisa_add_sequence_step, meisa_delete_sequence_step, and meisa_reorder_sequence_steps without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear operating condition (only change fields that apply to the step's type) and an explicit negative case with the alternative workflow (type cannot be changed; delete and re-add). It stops short of naming the sibling tools (e.g. meisa_add_sequence_step / meisa_delete_sequence_step) that would complete the routing picture.

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