cdp_update_report_def

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions, whether the update is partial/full, validation rules for the JSON body, error handling, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves the agent guessing about important operational aspects.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place—there's no fluff or redundant information. It efficiently communicates the essential action and input format.

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 (mutation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. However, the presence of an output schema somewhat mitigates the need to describe return values. The description covers the basic 'what' but misses crucial context about how the update works, error conditions, and parameter details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'ID' (mapping to report_def_id) and 'updated fields as a JSON string' (mapping to body), but provides no details about JSON structure, accepted fields, or format. The optional tenant_id parameter isn't mentioned at all. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal value beyond naming two parameters.

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 purpose: 'Update an existing report definition by ID. Pass updated fields as a JSON string.' It specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('report definition'), and key mechanism (ID-based update with JSON payload). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools like cdp_update_audience_def or cdp_update_campaign, which follow the same pattern.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing report definition ID), when not to use it, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. With many sibling tools including cdp_copy_report_def and cdp_create_report_def, the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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