d365_plugin_step_update

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but say nothing about concurrency or configuration handling; the description fills that gap with concrete behavior: table concurrency metadata plus a specific ETag by default, secure set creating a replacement row bound in the same PATCH, clear unbinding, and existing rows never blindly deleted. It stops short of stating required permissions or what a write/readback failure response looks like beyond "preserve phase evidence".

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then progressively narrower behavioral facts (patch semantics, concurrency, secure configuration, failure evidence). No sentence restates the name or title and none is padding.

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 destructive, 13-parameter mutation with nested configuration objects and no output schema, the description covers the risky parts an agent must know: omit-keeps, ETag concurrency, replacement-row semantics, and failure evidence. It leaves auth/permission requirements and error signaling implicit, which is the main remaining gap.

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 69%, so the schema already documents most parameters (if_match, dry_run, configuration actions). The description adds the non-obvious defaults — that omitting if_match uses the current step ETag and that table concurrency metadata drives the decision — plus the keep/set/clear model, but does not explain allow_unprotected_update or the alias pairs. Mid-coverage baseline of 3 fits.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Update one plugin step"), which an agent can distinguish from d365_plugin_step_register, d365_plugin_steps_query, and d365_plugin_image_update in the sibling list. It never names an alternative explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous from the first four words.

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 never states when to choose this tool over d365_plugin_step_register or the image-update sibling, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing step or how it relates to querying first. Patch semantics ("omitted fields are kept") describe how the call behaves, not when to make it.

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