Update Workflow Step

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it marks steps as completed or pending (matching the boolean parameter), but it does not discuss side effects, authorization needs, or response behavior. Since annotations carry the safety profile, this is adequate but minimal.

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 a single clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could potentially include a brief list of required parameters.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive schema descriptions, the description is minimally complete. It does not mention the return value or what happens on success/failure, but the schema covers parameter details.

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%: all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Mark a specific workflow session step as completed or pending.' It specifies the resource (workflow session step) and the verb (mark as completed/pending), distinguishing it from sibling tools like genlayer_get_workflow_session or genlayer_start_workflow_session.

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 implies usage for updating step status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not directive.

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