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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so 'write operation' merely restates the schema-level hints. The description adds no detail about what fields are replaced vs merged, whether unspecified fields are cleared, or auth requirements. The 'confirm is not required by the Excel' sentence is opaque and adds no real behavioral insight.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core action, which is good. However, the second sentence is garbled ('confirm is not required by the Excel') and consumes space without conveying meaning, so it is not fully efficient.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, only 36% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves most of the calling surface undocumented. It gives an endpoint but no payload semantics, field behaviors, or success/return expectations.

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 only 36% across 11 parameters, and the description documents none of them (data, name, type, title, doc_type, recipient_users, etc.). With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Updates a saved/shared report') and even names the underlying endpoint POST /docs/:report_id/update, which distinguishes it from get_report, delete_report, create_report, and list_reports in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose update_report over create_report or get_report, and no prerequisites (auth scope, ownership) are stated. The trailing clause about 'confirm' is confusing and doesn't function as usable guidance.

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