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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load and does real work: it discloses the authorization requirement ('Owner or office only'), explains that date_range is a moving window resolved on the shop's calendar at each run, and clarifies that supplying report_id mutates an existing record rather than creating one. It leaves open what happens to params on update (merge vs replace) and whether names must be unique.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by two short, purposeful sentences covering the update path and the permission gate. The two long inline enumerations of op_id and date_range values are bulky but each entry is load-bearing for selection, so the length is justified rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the save/update split, the moving-date-range behavior, and the permission model. For a 6-parameter write tool with a free-form nested params object, it would be stronger if it said how params interact with the chosen op or what an update does to existing settings.

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 only 17%, yet the description enumerates every op_id value, every date_range value, and gives the crucial semantic that the range is recomputed each run rather than frozen at save time — information the schema's enum alone cannot convey. report_id's create-vs-update meaning is also supplied. The params object is only glossed as 'its settings' and shop_id goes unmentioned, keeping this below a 5.

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 specific verb+resource ('Save a report to run again later') and enumerates exactly what the saved artifact contains (name, op_id, params, date_range). The phrase 'to run again later' distinguishes it from reports_run, and 'Send report_id to change a saved one' separates create from update, so an agent can place it against its siblings without opening a schema.

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 clear when-to-use context (persist a report configuration for repeat execution) and an explicit rule for the update path ('Send report_id to change a saved one'), plus the access gate 'Owner or office only'. It doesn't name reports_listSaved or reports_removeSaved as adjacent alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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