update_shared_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states 'update' implying mutation, but doesn't disclose what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise at just 4 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word directly contributes to stating the tool's purpose.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'shared step' is, what fields can be updated, what the update does, or what to expect in return. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so all 7 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what parameters mean (e.g., what 'code', 'hash', or 'steps' represent), their formats, or relationships. This forces the agent to guess parameter purposes based on names alone.

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 'Update an existing shared step' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (shared step), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like update_case or update_plan, which follow the same pattern for different resources.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing shared step), nor does it differentiate from create_shared_step for new items or get_shared_step for reading. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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