post_report_builder_create_report_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that this is a POST-based create operation, but it does not explain side effects, whether report generation is asynchronous, what authentication or headers are actually required, or what happens after the job is created. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the endpoint, parameter placement, and payload instruction without any filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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?

The description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this complex API: it does not specify which route IDs are valid, what filters or pagination syntax to use, which headers are mandatory, or what the request payload must contain. The generic schema and absent annotations leave too much unspecified for a non-trivial create-report-job operation.

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?

The schema is completely generic and has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add useful semantic meaning: path_params contains route IDs, query holds filters and pagination, headers holds required request headers, and body holds the payload. It lacks concrete field names or payload details, but it makes the otherwise opaque schema usable at a basic level.

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 clear action ('Create Report') and names the exact endpoint (`POST /report_builder/create_report_job`), so an agent knows it creates a report job. It is distinguishable from siblings like `get_report_builder_get_report_link` and `post_report_builder_update_standard_report_settings` by its create verb and endpoint, though it does not explicitly call out any alternative.

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 gives practical how-to guidance by telling the agent where each kind of input belongs: route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers, and payload in body. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over related report-builder tools or when not to use it, leaving selection mostly implied by the name and endpoint.

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