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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses that share links are not search-indexed, that commenting requires a free sign-in, that relative asset refs are rewritten to public URLs in one call, that re-uploading a relative_path replaces it, and that source_recipe.prompt is visible to every viewer. It omits auth/scope requirements and rate limits, so not a 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded: the core action and the key default come first, followed by overrides, asset behavior, and the return shape. It is somewhat long for a schema that already documents every parameter, so a small amount of overlap with the schema keeps it from a 5.

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 10-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: required vs optional intent, default and enum behavior, the asset-rewriting workflow, and the returned fields (report id, visibility, public_permission, edit_url, share_url). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: the effect of visibility and public_permission on actual viewer behavior, the purpose of producer_name (public attribution watermark), and the warning that source_recipe.prompt is shown to all viewers and should only be passed on request.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+outcome: 'Upload a new HTML report to Comma and get back an absolute share_url.' It implicitly separates itself from siblings by noting that assets can be passed in the same call 'instead of creating the report, uploading, and patching the HTML yourself,' distinguishing it from upload_report_asset and create_report_from_url.

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?

States defaults (visibility='public', public_permission='comment') and the exact overrides to use for owner-only or read-only links, and explicitly routes team/domain audiences to the sibling set_report_sharing ('create then call set_report_sharing'). It also conditions source_recipe.prompt on 'only pass it when the user asks.' No explicit exclusion of create_report_from_url by name, so not a full 5.

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