create_shared_step

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions minimum required fields but fails to disclose side effects, permissions, return value, or error behavior. The description adds little beyond what the schema already indicates.

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, no wasted words. First sentence states core purpose, second provides usage requirement and motivation. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema and minimal schema description, the description lacks important context: no mention of what the tool returns (e.g., created step ID), no prerequisites, no permission requirements. Leaves agent underinformed for a creation tool.

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 baseline is 3. Description repeats required fields with types (name string, projectId number), adding minimal extra meaning beyond schema. No additional semantics about optional fields or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Create' and resource 'shared step', with context 'in a project'. It distinguishes from siblings like update_shared_step and archive_shared_step by focusing on creation and providing a use case: 'extract repeated test steps into a reusable library'.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to extract repeated test steps into a reusable library.' No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is distinct from other tools, making usage straightforward.

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