Edit step

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the scope is a single step, but it does not disclose partial-vs-full update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved), permission requirements, or what happens to the other steps' ordering when 'order' changes.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, followed by the field list. No filler, 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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the field names but leaves out the required stepId, partial-update behavior, and any return/confirmation information. It is minimally viable rather than 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does name most editable fields (title, status, order, lever, estimate). However, it omits the required stepId identifier, does not clarify units for estimateMin (minutes?), does not explain 'lever' vs the schema's leverId, or the meaning/range of 'order', so the compensation is only partial.

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 gives a specific verb (Change) plus resource (one step) and enumerates the mutable fields, so it is clearly distinguishable from edit_milestone, edit_plan_item, and edit_session by resource. It stops short of naming those siblings or the delete_step alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus delete_step, add_steps, or the other edit_* tools, and no prerequisites (e.g., the step must already exist). The only implied guidance is that this modifies an existing step, which the agent must infer.

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