yaaif_plan_execution_update_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the mutation and the target, but does not explain overwrite semantics, idempotency, side effects, prerequisites beyond 'saved', or what happens when status is set to different enum values. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element contributes: what is updated, on what resource, and when to call it.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, five parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, this one-line description is not enough. The agent still lacks explanation of how to identify the plan execution and step, what result_ids should look like, and how error/status interact.

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 for the schema's silence. It mentions 'status/result_ids' but does not clarify slug, step_id, error, the result_ids object structure, or the meaning of the status enum values. It adds only partial meaning to two of five parameters.

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 action ('Update'), a specific resource ('one step status/result_ids on a saved plan execution'), and a clear scope. This distinguishes it from sibling plan tools like plan_execution_save or plan_execution_resume, which operate at the whole-execution level.

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 parenthetical '(call after each mutate)' provides an explicit usage trigger, telling the agent when in the workflow this tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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