Update DataLens report

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing what the save destroys (slide ``layout`` and some ``settings``), that no revision check is performed so concurrent writes are silently overwritten, and that the API drops fields 'without a word, though every value is sent'. This is exactly the beyond-schema behavioral context an agent needs. The data-loss warning sits awkwardly next to destructiveHint=false, but it errs on the side of caution rather than misleading the caller, so I treat it as a caveat rather than a hard annotation contradiction.

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 most important fact is front-loaded ('it LOSES the ``layout``...'), which is good. However the loss is restated in the third sentence and 'measured' appears twice (once bracketed with a date, once not), giving a slightly repetitive, informal structure that could be tightened.

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 six parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and open-world annotations, the description covers the critical unknowns: destructive side effects, lack of optimistic-concurrency protection, and a safe procedure. It omits only peripheral detail (permissions, return shape), which the annotation profile and the absent output schema render less important.

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 100%, so all six parameters (including data, mode, rev_id, meta, annotation) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'change ``data``' and the unenforced revision is useful color but adds little syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema states ('it replaces the whole of it'; 'save keeps the report as a draft; publish shows it to all'). Baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Save a report') and immediately characterizes the scope of the write, so it reads as an update-to-existing-entry operation ('before saving an existing report'). It is distinguishable from the report siblings (get/create/delete), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives clear operating context: 'Ask the person before saving an existing report' and the fallback workflow 'read it, change ``data``, send it back whole', which implies using the read tool first. It stops short of naming alternatives or an explicit when-not-to-use-this-tool rule, so it is strong but not complete.

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