bw_update_planning_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the single most important behavioral trait: steps are wholesale replaced in the given order (so omitting a step deletes it). It still omits permissions, whether the sequence must be inactive, and reversibility, so it is not fully transparent for a mutation tool.

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, tightly front-loaded with the mutation semantics before the alternative workflow. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant padding.

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 an update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical replacement semantics and the read-first workflow. Gaps remain around prerequisites (transport obligation, activation state) that an agent would need before calling it, keeping it short of full completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so steps, transport, description and sequence_name are already documented in the schema. The description's ordering note ('in that order') largely duplicates the schema's 'steps in execution order', and it adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what structured fields provide. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (change/update) on a specific resource (planning sequence) and pinpoints exactly what is mutated: the step list (full replacement, in order) and/or the description. An agent can distinguish this from bw_get_planning_sequence and bw_create_planning_sequence without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow for the common case: to add, remove or move a step, read the sequence with bw_get_planning_sequence and pass the whole new list. This names the sibling tool and the read-modify-write pattern required, rather than leaving the agent to infer it.

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