update_report

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

The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement, which is not present in the annotations and is useful operational context. Annotations already indicate non-readonly (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and the description does not contradict these. While it doesn't disclose side effects like return values or result format, the annotation coverage lowers the burden, making this sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose immediately and appends the write-enable requirement concisely. Every word contributes value; there is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter update operation with full schema descriptions and clear annotations, so the description is appropriately sized. It does not mention return values or response format, but no output schema exists and for an update tool this is not a critical gap. The description, combined with schema and annotations, provides enough context for an agent to invoke the 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters completely: sys_id as "Report sys_id" and fields as "Fields to update (title, type, query, field, aggregate, etc.)." The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Update an existing saved report definition," clearly indicating a mutation operation on an existing report rather than creation or read. The word "existing" distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_report and get_report. The added "requires WRITE_ENABLED=true" also hints at operational prerequisites without confusing the core purpose.

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 phrase "existing saved report definition" implies this is for modifying already-created reports, providing clear context versus create_report. It also states a precondition (WRITE_ENABLED=true), which helps the agent know when the tool can be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for this simple update, the guidance is adequate.

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