edit_step

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the edit is partial or full replacement, whether it is reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or whether the step must be in a particular state. "Edit" alone is a restatement of the tool name.

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?

A single four-word sentence with zero waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. Nothing useful is front-loaded because almost nothing is stated.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a fully opaque nested body object, the description supplies none of the information an agent would need to construct a valid call. It is completely inadequate given this schema's complexity.

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%, and the body parameter is an untyped object with no declared properties. The phrase "by ID" only clarifies that the string id identifies the target step; the body's contents, the single most important parameter, are entirely undocumented.

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?

"Edit a step by ID" names a specific verb (edit) and resource (step), which is enough to separate it from siblings like edit_task and get_step. However, it says nothing about what an edit consists of or what fields are mutable, so the purpose is only minimally specified.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not distinguish this from create_task, cancel_step, or edit_task. The only implicit signal is that the step must already exist to be edited.

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