Create a report template

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description usefully adds the confirm gating and the absence of a server-side dry run, which the annotations don't convey. It stops short of describing the preview response or side effects on existing templates.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the write safety constraint. No redundant restatement of the title, though it could be marginally more economical.

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?

For a mutation tool with a nested body schema and no output schema, the description covers the critical safety behavior (confirm gate, no dry run). It is adequately complete, with only return/preview shape left implicit.

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 coverage is 67% and both confirm and idempotencyKey are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the confirm gate but adds nothing about the body object's name/sections requirements beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 fits.

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 a specific verb+resource (create a report template) and even cites the HTTP endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what it builds. It is distinct from the reportTemplates_list/update/delete siblings by the verb, though it never names them.

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 makes clear this is a write that only fires with confirm: true and warns there is no server-side dry run. It does not, however, guide the agent on when to prefer this over reportSchedules_create or reports_generate, leaving alternative-selection to inference.

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