Create DataLens report

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

Annotations only mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent write. The description goes well beyond them by disclosing that API-created reports lose the `layout` of slide elements and part of `settings`, so a later reports_get round-trip is lossy, and by adding the hard constraint that at least one slide is required. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioural warning an agent needs.

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?

Purpose and the critical data-loss caveat are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. The 'Measured (2026-10-06)' provenance line and the fragmented backtick-heavy formatting cost a little readability, but nothing is filler.

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 nested objects and no output schema, it covers the riskiest unknowns (lossy layout/settings, minimum slide requirement, where to find the nested schema). It stops short of describing the creation response or permission requirements, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it states that `data` replaces the whole report payload, points the agent at schema_get(service="datalens", name="ReportData") for the unlisted nested schema, and constrains `data.slides` to at least one entry.

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 first clause gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a report') and the scope ('in a workbook'), which cleanly separates it from datalens_reports_get/update/delete among the many siblings. An agent knows exactly what object is being produced.

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?

It supplies prerequisites (read `ReportData` via schema_get first; a report needs at least one slide) and instructs the caller to disclose the lossy behaviour before creating. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over an alternative workflow or any when-not conditions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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