Rewrite an open step

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the two most consequential behaviors: an authorization scope (only certain tasks) and a hard failure mode (ticked steps are refused) with a remedy. It does not say whether the prior text is recoverable or what a successful rewrite returns, leaving some 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 sentences, zero filler, and the precondition is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion rule. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 three-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, authorization, and the refusal path. It stops short of describing success behavior or how ambiguous duplicate step text is resolved.

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 100% and all three parameters are documented there, including the 100-character limit and that `step` is addressed by its text. The description only restates the eligibility constraint rather than adding syntax or format meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (rewrite) and resource (a step), scoped to unticked steps on a task you filed or that was opened to agents. The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like reword_note, tick, and untick, though no sibling is named to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Explicitly gives the condition for use (unticked step, on a task you own or one opened to agents) and the condition against it (ticked steps are refused). It even routes the agent to `untick` as the remedy when the tick was a mistake, which is a real when-not path.

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