create_shared_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. 'Create a new shared step' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether this is a destructive operation, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 maximally concise at just four words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure structural perspective, it's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words. Every word earns its place, even though the place is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (creation operation with 6 parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what a shared step is, when to create one, what the parameters mean, what behavior to expect, or what the tool returns. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 and 6 parameters (3 required), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'code', 'title', 'action', 'expected_result', 'data', or 'steps' mean in the context of creating a shared step. The schema defines the structure but not the semantics, and the description fails completely to compensate for this gap, leaving all parameters undocumented.

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 'Create a new shared step' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful differentiation. While it identifies the verb ('create') and resource ('shared step'), it doesn't specify what a 'shared step' is or how it differs from other entities like cases, plans, or suites that appear in sibling tools. This provides minimal value beyond the name itself.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like create_case, create_plan, create_suite, and update_shared_step, there's no indication of what distinguishes a 'shared step' from these other entities or when one would choose to create a shared step versus other creation tools. This leaves the agent with no contextual understanding of appropriate usage scenarios.

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