Cm360.Report.Insert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the operation is guarded by a preview + confirm token flow, signaling a non-immediate mutation. It still omits the auth/permission requirements, whether the created report is persistent or deletable, and how the token is obtained or how long it lives.

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 the action first and the caveat second; there is no filler and nothing is buried.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), this is an unannotated mutation tool whose key payload is an opaque nested object. The description should say more about the preview/confirm mechanics (what the preview returns, where the token comes from) to be sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: 'report body' maps loosely to the `report` param and 'confirm token' to `confirm`. The core payload, `report`, is a nested free-form object with additionalProperties=true and no documented structure anywhere, and `profile_id` is never mentioned, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid call.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource pair: 'Create a report definition from a report body'. This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like cm360.reports.list and cm360.report.run. It doesn't explicitly name or disambiguate against those siblings by name, which keeps it 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?

The parenthetical '(guarded: preview + confirm token)' implies a two-step invocation pattern, so an agent can infer that a preview call precedes the committing call. However, it never states explicitly when to use this versus cm360.report.run or cm360.reports.list, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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