advance_step

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself; it does say the tool completes the current step, moves currentStepId, and validates phase transitions, which signals a mutating operation with validation. However, it does not mention failure behavior on invalid transitions, permissions, or potential side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences contain the action, mechanism, and a validation constraint with no filler or repetition. The key behavior is front-loaded.

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 simple 2-parameter mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the main flow and validation but omits error handling, return details, and prerequisites. It is adequate but not complete enough to fully guide an agent without additional assumptions.

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?

The schema describes stepId's optional/default behavior, and the description reinforces that context by mentioning 'current step' and 'specific step id'. The requestId parameter is only derivable from 'for a request', not explicitly described, so with 50% schema coverage the description only partially compensates.

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 states a specific action (advance), a clear resource (current step for a request), and the outcome (completes current step and moves currentStepId). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_request_steps or update_request_status, which handle viewing or status changes rather than step progression.

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 clearly implies the tool is used when a request's step should be moved forward, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as update_request_status or list_request_steps. Context is clear, yet exclusions and alternative routing are absent.

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