workflows_update_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, whether updates are immediate or require re-deployment, or any constraints. A mutation tool should provide more transparency.

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 sentence, concise, but it lacks substance. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; here it is too terse to be maximally helpful.

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 the presence of an output schema, return values are covered, but the description fails to provide sufficient context about the tool's behavior, such as idempotency, possible errors, or relationship to the workflow lifecycle. With 5 parameters and low coverage, more explanation is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It fails to explain what 'inputs', 'outputs', 'step_image_url', or 'step_name' represent in the context of a workflow step, leaving the agent to guess.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('configuration for a workflow step'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like workflows_step_completed and workflows_step_failed. However, it is slightly generic and could specify what aspects of configuration can be updated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or context. The description does not indicate whether this tool should be used during step setup or for modifications after a step has started.

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