update_test_scenario_steps

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

With no annotations provided, the disclosure of the full replacement behavior is a key trait. However, it lacks information on authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., impact on running tests), or error handling for invalid scenarioId. The description adequately covers the step replacement but misses other typical behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then the critical replacement behavior, and finally the step type support. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of the nested steps array and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and key constraints (full replacement, step types). It could mention more about error scenarios or what happens if the scenario does not exist, but it is sufficient for correct use.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful context by explaining the bindId reference and the distinction between 'http' step and 'if' block (children vs httpApiCase). This clarifies the schema beyond its structure, helping the agent understand step configuration.

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 the tool 'Set or update the steps in a test scenario', identifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it deals exclusively with steps of a test scenario, not other scenario properties, and notes full replacement behavior.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool, emphasizing that steps are fully replaced and must be passed as a complete array. It also explains supported step types ('http' and 'if' conditional blocks). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like update_test_scenario for other properties.

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