update_custom_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it updates an existing report, but does not clarify partial vs full update semantics, whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, directly front-loaded with the action and object. Every word is necessary and no filler is present, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite a detailed schema, the description lacks critical behavioral context for an update operation. It does not explain whether the update is partial (only provided fields) or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, or whether the updated configuration is returned. The absence of annotations and output schema makes the description insufficient for a tool with 11 parameters and nested objects.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters, so the schema already provides parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('existing report configuration'). It distinguishes from create/delete/list siblings through the verb and 'existing', but does not explicitly differentiate from update_report_schedule, which is a separate resource. The name 'custom_report' helps disambiguate.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_custom_report or update_report_schedule, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred solely from the tool name and description.

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