workflow_update_step

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses that it updates a step (mutation) and lists parameters, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error behavior.

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 concise with one sentence plus a well-structured Args list. No redundant information, every part earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not provided) but the description doesn't mention return values or errors. For a simple update tool, it's adequate but could be more complete.

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 0%, but the description provides meaningful descriptions for all 4 parameters, including valid status values. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 'Update a workflow step with validation evidence,' specifying the verb 'update' and resource 'workflow step'. It distinguishes from siblings like workflow_run and workflow_status.

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 explains parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied but not guided with conditions.

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