update_plan_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: linked issues sync state when toggling done, plan status never closes the anchor issue, and it returns a delta. These are beyond the schema and helpful for avoiding unintended side effects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence earns its place by covering a distinct aspect: general function, step mode, plan mode, and return type. No redundancy.

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 tool with 17 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid overview of the two major behavioral branches and important side effects. It doesn't enumerate all parameters, but the schema does that. The 'Returns a delta' note helps set expectations without an output 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual structure by explaining how step_id changes the target and how 'done' syncs linked issues. This helps interpret the parameters more deeply than the schema alone.

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 it can mutate a plan or a step, with explicit conditions (step_id vs no step_id). It uses the specific verb 'Mutate' and identifies distinct operations for each mode, which helps differentiate from sibling tools.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use each mode: 'With step_id: step CRUD, done toggling, attach/detach issue' and 'Without step_id: update the plan itself.' It also includes a caveat about plan status never closing the anchor issue. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like edit_plan_step.

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