superset_report_update

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it is a partial update ('Pass only the fields to change') and highlights a critical behavior: 'recipients: JSON string with new recipient list (REPLACES all current recipients).' It also explains the meaning of 'active.' It does not mention permissions or error handling, but the provided behavioral details go beyond a simple update statement.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The Args list is organized and contains only necessary information, with no redundant filler or tangential content.

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?

The description thoroughly covers all parameters and key behavioral semantics (partial update, recipient replacement). An output schema is present, so return values need no explanation. It could add explicit notes about omitted fields remaining unchanged, but 'Pass only the fields to change' already implies that, making it sufficiently complete for an update tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in the Args list. It provides a concrete cron example, clarifies active as enable/disable, and defines recipients with a warning about replacement. This exceeds what the plain schema offers.

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 begins with 'Update a report/alert,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like superset_report_create, superset_report_get, and superset_report_delete. It also adds 'Pass only the fields to change,' which conveys the partial-update nature of the tool.

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 provides clear context by stating this is for updating an existing report/alert and clarifies that only the fields needing changes should be passed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the sibling list makes the distinction obvious.

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