Repair a step target

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive/idempotent/openWorld=false, which it does not contradict), it discloses real side effects: it publishes a new workflow version when the workflow is otherwise unchanged, it returns the previous and new target, and it imposes an extra gate (confirmCommitTarget: true) for the commit step. That is material context an agent cannot get from annotations alone.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core mutation and its scope come first, then prerequisites, then the return value and the commit-step caveat. No filler sentences, though the second sentence chains three clauses and could be split for readability.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description states what is returned (previous and new target). For a destructive, nested-object mutation tool it covers scope, prerequisites, sequencing, side effects (new workflow version), and the special commit-step flag — everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 only 40%, and the description compensates for the two most ambiguous parameters: runId's default behavior ('latest run of the workflow if no runId') and confirmCommitTarget's purpose. It also defines the target shape by reference ('As in workflow_save'). workflow and stepId are still left unexplained, so it does not fully close the gap.

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 precise verb and resource ('replaces the target of the paused step of that run') and scopes it against siblings by explicitly excluding what it does not touch ('never its action order or submission boundary'). An agent can distinguish this from workflow_save, browser_act and run_resume without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the trigger condition ('After needs_repair'), the prerequisite ('Get verified selectors first with browser_act inspect on the live page, in the same session'), the follow-up call ('then call run_resume'), and the fallback rule for runId. When-to-use and what-to-do-around-it are fully specified.

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