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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false, readOnlyHint false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: going backward implies re-running all checks on the way forward, and it names the return payload ('Returnerar step och snapshot'). It does not state whether state in later steps is preserved or discarded, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the action is stated first, then the usage condition, then the return value. Every sentence carries information, though the first line and the usage line slightly overlap on the same 'go back to a prior step' idea.

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 low-complexity two-parameter navigation tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete, and it compensates for the absent output schema by naming the returned step and snapshot. Missing only the effect on in-progress data in later steps.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 1-7 range and the 'only previous or current' rule. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Går tillbaka till ett tidigare steg i webbguiden') and explicitly separates itself from the sibling next_step for forward navigation. An agent can distinguish this tool from next_step without opening either 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Använd för att ändra något i ett steg som redan är klart') and names the only alternative for the opposite direction ('Framåt går man bara med next_step'). Nothing is left to inference about which navigation tool to pick.

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