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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already establish that this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds the partial-update behavior, but does not cover side effects, validation, or return behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place but is terse for a 14-parameter tool with a dashboard scope in the title.

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 schema and output schema carry most of the load, but the description omits the 'dashboard' scope from the title and gives no usage context. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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?

Input schema describes all 14 parameters, so the description has little to add. 'Only include fields you want to change' usefully clarifies that all fields except id are optional, which is implied but not spelled out 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update a report'), immediately locating the operation among many update_* siblings. It does not mention the 'dashboard' scope found in the title, so the full scope is only partially stated.

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 instruction 'only include the fields you want to change' gives a useful partial-update guideline and implies that omitted fields remain unchanged. However, it does not state when to prefer this over sibling update tools or provide exclusions.

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