steam_updateWorkshopItem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions authentication requirements and a key limitation (no file content), but does not disclose whether updates are atomic, what the response looks like, or if there are rate limits. The description partially covers behavior but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence immediately stating the purpose and the second adding essential prerequisites and limitations. No extraneous words.

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 description provides necessary context about API key requirements and file content limitations, but lacks details about return values, side effects, or error handling, which are important for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists parameter names (title, description, visibility, tags) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The visibility enum values are already documented in the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'update', the resource 'existing Steam Workshop item', and the specific metadata fields (title, description, visibility, tags). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like steam_uploadWorkshopItem by focusing on metadata updates.

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 description explicitly mentions the requirement for a publisher API key with IP allowlisting and notes that file content updates require the SDK, providing clear context for when to use this tool versus other methods. It does not, however, explicitly list when not to use the tool or compare directly with sibling tools.

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