post_report_builder_upload_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP method (POST) and endpoint, implying a write/upload operation, but it does not state side effects, required authentication, file format expectations, or whether this overwrites an existing template. The generic 'Provide the request payload in body' adds no behavioral detail.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the endpoint, but the second half is generic boilerplate that could apply to any HTTP tool. It earns a middle score because it is not verbose, yet the space is not used efficiently to convey tool-specific meaning.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the upload template concept, the expected body format, the meaning of route IDs, or the response. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still leaves an agent without enough context to invoke this tool correctly.

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, but it only restates the schema's parameter names (path_params, query, headers, body) without adding any meaning. It says route IDs go in path_params and filters/pagination in query, which is a small hint, but it does not explain what the body should contain, what route IDs refer to, or what filters are available. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 the HTTP method and endpoint ('Calls POST /report_builder/upload_template') and mentions 'Report Settings', which gives a general sense of the operation. However, it does not explain what uploading a template actually does, what a template is, or what the expected outcome is. It is distinguishable from siblings only by the endpoint name, not by a clear functional description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a write operation, nor does it contrast with related report builder tools like get_report_builder_download_default_template or post_report_builder_create_report_job. The only usage hint is the generic instruction to put route IDs in path_params, filters in query, etc., which is about parameter placement, not about when to choose this tool.

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