Update Incident Retrospective Step

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and repeat-call profile, and the description adds nothing beyond that. It omits what a partial update does to unspecified attributes, whether auth scopes are required, and how the JSON:API payload is treated, so no extra behavioral context is delivered.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, for a mutation tool with a nested required payload it is arguably too terse to earn its place as the only prose an agent gets.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the tool takes a nested required JSON:API body with six updatable attributes and the description says nothing about that shape or about partial-update semantics. Combined with the sparse 50% schema coverage, an agent is left to infer how to construct the call.

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 only 50%, largely because the container fields (`data`, `type`, `attributes`) carry no descriptions, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It never mentions the required nested `data.attributes` payload or the enum-valued `status` field, adding zero meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Update a specific incident retrospective step') plus the identifier basis ('by id'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish this from close siblings such as update_retrospective_step or update_incident_action_item, which share almost identical naming and would confuse an agent at selection time.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the read-only get_incident_retrospective_step or the sibling update_retrospective_step, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given. The mutation intent is only implied by the verb 'Update'.

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