update_step

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

With no annotations, the description discloses critical update semantics: optional parameters are only changed if provided, and empty string explicitly clears filtering_attributes and configuration. This goes beyond the schema and reveals non-obvious behavior, though it does not cover permission requirements or error handling.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a concise clarification. No filler or repetition, every sentence adds value.

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 output schema present, the description sufficiently handles the main ambiguity (partial update semantics). It may lack detailed examples or per-field descriptions, but it is complete enough for the tool's complexity given that the output schema is available.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the general partial-update rule for all optional parameters and the special clearing behavior for two fields. However, it does not define the meaning of parameters like rank, stage, or environment, leaving gaps for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 tool updates existing SDK message processing steps, distinguishing it from create_step, delete_step, and toggle_step. The verb 'update' and resource 'existing SDK message processing step' are specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (to modify an existing step) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The general update behavior is clear, but no guidance on choosing between this and related tools like create_step or delete_step is provided.

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