Update Retrospective Step

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing to that: it does not say whether omitted attributes are cleared or left intact (critical for a PUT-style update), whether this affects steps in live retrospectives, or what permissions are needed.

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 short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. But brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency; the one clause could have been spent on behavior or scope instead.

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?

This is a nested-object mutation with partial-update ambiguity and a deprecated field, and the description addresses none of it. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the core question of what an update does to unspecified attributes is left unanswered.

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 only 50% and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all — it merely restates that the target is identified by id. The schema itself carries the important traps (id vs retrospective_step_id, deprecated slug, ignored data.id), but the description does not reinforce or extend any of that.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Update a specific retrospective step by id'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it gives no signal on how this differs from near-identical siblings such as update_incident_retrospective_step, update_retrospective_process, or update_retrospective_process_group, so an agent must infer scope from the name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives. The only hint is 'by id', which the schema already covers. With several update_* retrospective-family siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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