advance_harness_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key state transition: marking the current step complete then moving to the next pending one. It omits important behavioral facts such as what happens when no pending step remains, whether the operation is idempotent, and what the call returns.

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 one-line purpose followed by two short bullets is front-loaded and wastes no words. Structure maps cleanly onto the two behavioral modes, though it could be slightly tighter or surface an outcome sentence.

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 two-parameter, stateful mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary branching logic but leaves the result of the operation (return value, failure when no pending step exists) unstated, which an agent calling it would want to know.

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 does explain the crucial optional parameter: omitting completed_step completes the current step, while passing it completes a named step and then searches for the next pending one. workflow_id is left implicit but its meaning is evident from the name.

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: advancing a DeepSeek Harness workflow. It clearly conveys the tool's function but never names or contrasts with siblings such as create_harness_workflow or list_harness_workflows, so the agent must infer the routing from the resource 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?

It explains the two invocation modes driven by the optional completed_step argument, which is useful implied guidance. However, it says nothing about when to reach for this tool versus create_harness_workflow or the other workflow siblings, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given.

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