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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Any field not provided stays unchanged' discloses partial-update semantics, which is valuable. However, it doesn't disclose permissions, error behavior, or return format, leaving some gaps for an update operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 7-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior but omits the return value and error handling. Given no annotations to supplement, it could be more complete, though the partial-update note helps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to optional parameters via 'Any field not provided stays unchanged,' clarifying that omitting a field preserves its current value, which is not evident from the individual 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 clearly states 'Update an existing scheduled report,' using a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from create/delete/list siblings. The phrase 'existing' reinforces not-creating semantics.

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 implies the use case (modifying an existing report) but doesn't provide explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does add a usage hint with 'Any field not provided stays unchanged,' indicating partial updates, but does not contrast with create_scheduled_report or other tools.

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