update_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does unusually well: it flags the WRITE OPERATION, the required write scope, the at-least-one-field constraint, and discloses that deadline_notif may be rejected by the API and reported as unsupported. What it omits is whether unspecified fields are preserved and what the response/error shape looks like, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded and tight: the mutation and its scope constraint come first, with no padding sentences. The trailing '(see notes)' points at notes that are not present anywhere in the provided material, a small dangling reference that costs a point.

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?

The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the write-scope plus field constraint are covered. But for a no-annotation mutation tool, the unresolved identifier semantics and the dangling '(see notes)' reference leave the agent guessing about entity_type/step_id usage.

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 the description must compensate, and it only explains half the parameters (body, deadline, deadline_notif). The three required identifiers (id, step_id, entity_type) remain completely undocumented in both schema and description, which is a meaningful gap for a tool that cannot be called without them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing step') and names the editable fields (body, deadline). It implicitly separates itself from add_step/delete_step/toggle_step by scoping to field edits, though it never explicitly contrasts with toggle_step, which an agent might confuse for a status change on the same resource.

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?

Gives a real precondition ('at least one of body, deadline, deadline_notif must be provided') and names the required write scope, which is genuinely useful. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus toggle_step, add_step, or update_entity_fields, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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