update_step

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not say what happens if the step cannot be located, whether new_text and checked can be applied together, or what is returned.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first clause. Slight redundancy in restating the checked=true/false mapping after already saying 勾选/取消勾选, which is why it is not a 5.

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 is minimally adequate: the how-to-locate-the-step parameters (list, step, title, taskId) and their precedence are left entirely to the schema. Nothing in the description is wrong, but it omits edge-case behavior an agent would want.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including the checked boolean. The description only restates the checked=true/false mapping that the schema already provides, adding no new syntax or lookup semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource pair (勾选/取消勾选子步骤 or 修改步骤文字) so an agent immediately knows this mutates a step rather than a task. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as complete_task/uncomplete_task or update_task, which overlap conceptually.

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 implies two usage modes (toggle checked state, or replace step text), which is better than nothing, but it gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative tool. The agent must infer the routing decision from the sibling list alone.

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