tealfabric_update_process_step

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose the tool's behavior on its own. 'Update' signals mutation, but the description does not reveal whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens to omitted fields, what authentication or permissions are needed, or what the response contains. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is a strength, but it is too terse to carry the needed operational context for a 15-parameter mutation tool.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only about 13% schema description coverage. A single generic sentence is grossly insufficient for an agent to understand required fields, update semantics, parameter semantics, or expected results.

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?

Only 13% of the schema parameters have descriptions, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain the role of step_id, the updateable fields, or how the nested objects behave. The description completely fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Update') with a specific resource ('existing process step in a process flow'). It clearly differentiates from create/get/list siblings by emphasizing existing and by using the process-step resource rather than the process-level tool.

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 wording implies use when modifying an existing process step, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like create_process_step for new steps or get/list_process_steps for reads, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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