Api journey steps update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description needs to add context such as permission requirements or what happens to unmentioned fields. Instead it adds nothing, leaving the agent with only the annotation flags.

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?

Very short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency: the single sentence is a name restatement and carries no front-loaded actionable information.

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?

This is a mutation endpoint (readOnlyHint=false) with an opaque free-form body and no output schema. Nearly everything an agent needs — valid body fields, id format, error behavior, effect on the parent journey — is absent from both the description and the schema.

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 unconstrained anyOf object with no documented fields. The description must compensate by explaining what fields the body accepts, but it says nothing about either 'id' or 'body'.

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 is the tool name repeated with underscores swapped for spaces ('api_journey_steps_update'), a tautology. It conveys only the generic verb 'update' on 'journey steps' and offers no differentiation from siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_journey_steps_partial_update or ciso_assistant_api_journey_steps_update semantics.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. The sibling list contains multiple near-identical journey-step mutations (partial_update, batch_action_create, destroy), and the description never says which one applies or under what conditions.

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