alterios_upsert_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It implies mutation (create/update) and a read-back side effect, but it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or any constraints. The mention of 'plan' is unclear.

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 a single sentence, making it concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action but lacks structure for clarity.

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?

With 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and only a brief description, the tool is severely underspecified. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of information about the input parameters and overall behavior.

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 description provides no explanation for any of the 9 input parameters (e.g., name, dry_run, profile, template, report_id, etc.), and schema coverage is 0%. The description fails to add meaning beyond 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 tool can 'plan or create/update an Alterios report and read it back through report full.' While it identifies the resource (report) and actions (create/update/read back), the verb 'plan' is ambiguous and it does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like alterios_patch_report_template or alterios_create_report_tab.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as alterios_report_full or alterios_patch_report_template. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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