Update Automation Step

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation, so the description does not need to restate those traits. It adds little behavioral detail beyond listing fields, and it does not explain the effects of pausing a step or changing wait time, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it easy to scan. It loses a point because the unsupported 'send configurations' clause is misleading and does not earn its place.

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 4-parameter tool with two required fields and an enum, the core calling information is largely present. However, the description omits return-value guidance (no output schema) and introduces an unsupported 'send configurations' capability, leaving a small but real ambiguity for an agent.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description actively confuses parameter semantics by claiming 'send configurations' can be updated while the schema exposes only step_id, automation_id, wait_time, and step_status. It adds no meaningful parameter information beyond what the schema already provides clearly.

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 identifies the verb ('Update'), the resource ('individual step settings within an automation'), and distinguishes it from siblings like update_automation_settings. The phrase 'send configurations' is vague and unsupported by the schema, which prevents a perfect score.

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 wording 'within an automation' and 'individual step settings' establishes clear context for when this tool is appropriate, especially among automation-related siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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