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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it states the manage-permission requirement (owner or admin), describes the side effect of re-sending visibility='domain' (list replacement), and discloses conditional runtime behavior — the embed only renders while the report is public, its link permission isn't 'none', and it has no share password.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence maps to a parameter or side effect, with no filler. However, it is one dense paragraph mixing six parameters plus return-value behavior, which would scan better as structured lines; the length is justified by the tool's complexity, not padding.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers every parameter's semantics, the permission prerequisite, the embed rendering preconditions, and even the returned embed_snippet. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic depth the schema lacks: it explains what each visibility value means to real audiences, that 'domain' requires allowed_email_domains, and that [] / null explicitly disables embedding. It also documents the embed_snippet return field.

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?

Opens with a specific verb pair and resource: 'Publish or unpublish a report and control who can reach its share link (/p/:id)'. This is clearly distinguishable from update_report and the sibling set_report_signoff, which is referenced only for the staged-publishing concept.

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 explicit conditional recipes: 'To publish a report so anyone can open and comment on it, set visibility="public" and public_permission="comment"', and 'To change the domain list, send visibility="domain" again with the full new list'. It also cross-references set_report_signoff for staged publishing. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for overlapping edits (e.g. update_report), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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