document_intelligence_create_report

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context that the call routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or what resource is affected.

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, front-loaded with the action name, and has no filler. The routing/scoping sentence and the Args block each earn their place, and the format is easily scannable.

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?

A basic invocation is possible: two params are described, scoping is stated, and an output schema exists so return-shape documentation is unnecessary. However, the description never defines what 'report' means, what inputs should look like, or what destructive side effect may occur, despite destructiveHint=true.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains message as a free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string of structured inputs, adding real semantic value beyond the bare type/default fields. It remains generic because it gives no expected JSON shape or example.

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 that the tool runs the document_intelligence domain agent action create_report, naming the verb, resource, and domain. It adds a routing/scoping note, but does not explain what the generated report contains or how it differs from sibling document_intelligence actions.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given. The description does not mention alternatives such as document_intelligence_write_document, document_intelligence_search_documents, or the generic dispatch_domain_agent, so an agent must infer suitability from the name alone.

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