update_step_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool sets status and comment, and that step results are auto-created. It does not disclose return values, error conditions, or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences plus a list of status codes. The action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. Perfectly concise.

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 simple update tool, the description covers main usage points. However, the lack of output schema means the description should ideally mention what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator), which is absent. Still, it is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds all parameter meaning. It explains step_result_id source, status codes with explicit mapping, and that comment is optional. This fully compensates for the lack of 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 the action 'Set the status (and optional comment) of one step result,' using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on other entities like cycles or executions.

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?

It provides helpful context: where to obtain the step_result_id, the meaning of status codes, and that step results are auto-created. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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