step_control

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond that: reset requires confirm=true. It does not disclose which actions mutate or destroy journal state, nor the effect of force or index.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, compact pipe-delimited action list, and a pointer to operation_help for detail. No filler, though the bare action list is dense rather than informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a destructive, six-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description leaves the interaction between action and its companion arguments (index, params, force) entirely unexplained.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It does supply the critical action vocabulary (which the schema leaves as an undescribed plain string) and ties confirm=true to reset, but index, force, params, and doc_name are given no meaning at all.

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?

States a specific set of verbs (review, run, undo) over a concrete resource (a document's step journal), and the action enumeration makes the scope unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling step_plan, which is the main reason it isn't a 5.

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?

Listing the 14 valid actions implies what the tool can do, and one precondition is given (reset needs confirm=true). However it never says when to pick run_to vs rollback_to vs reexecute, nor when to use this tool rather than step_plan. Usage must be inferred from the action names.

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