update_report

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: it pre-checks edit access and refuses if can_write is false, and it requires docsConsulted=true. It also mandates documentation-first behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It doesn't mention reversibility or side effects, but the pre-check and refusal behavior are significant disclosures. A 4 is appropriate because it goes beyond a simple 'update' statement but doesn't cover all potential side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action: 'Update an existing report.' It then adds critical behavioral constraints in a compact manner. The documentation-first instruction is a bit long but necessary. It earns a 4 because it's efficient and well-structured, though the documentation-first sentence could be slightly more concise.

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's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential behavioral context: pre-checks, refusal condition, and documentation requirement. It doesn't explain return values, but there's no output schema, so the description isn't required to. It could mention what happens on success or failure, but the refusal condition is a key part. A 4 is appropriate because it's complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, with minor gaps around post-update 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds context for docsConsulted (must be true) and docsReference (the doc URL/section used), which are already in the schema. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 for high coverage. It does clarify the purpose of docsConsulted and docsReference in the context of the documentation-first rule, which is a slight addition.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Update an existing report.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning pre-checks and documentation requirements, which are specific to this tool. The verb 'update' and resource 'report' are explicit, and the description adds unique behavioral details that separate it from create_report or get_report.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to update an existing report, and it provides clear prerequisites: pre-checks edit access, refuses if can_write is false, requires docsConsulted=true. It also instructs to read official Splunk docs before writing SPL or dashboard definitions, which is a clear usage guideline. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context signals and sibling list make it clear this is for updates, not creation or retrieval.

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