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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds approval-related context, but it does not explain what the edit destroys, whether omitted fields are cleared, or how partial updates are handled.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a short first sentence, and the second sentence is relevant to approval behavior. It is concise, though the approval sentence is somewhat generic policy context rather than actionable invocation guidance.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a complex nested payload and no parameter descriptions, yet the description omits update semantics, validation expectations, permission details, and field-level guidance. Output schema coverage helps with return values, but the input-side completeness is insufficient.

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%, and the description provides no meaning for id or the nested data fields such as name, sorts, columns, filters, baseEntity, or description. With a complex nested update payload, it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 verb and resource: Edit a saved report definition. This clearly distinguishes it from create_saved_report, delete_saved_report, get_saved_report, and run_report, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

It implies the tool is for modifying an existing saved report, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not clarify when to use update_saved_report versus create_saved_report, delete_saved_report, or run_report.

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