update_draft_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses partial-update semantics and the 409 conflict on invalid status, which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral context such as the response shape, permission requirements, error behavior beyond 409, and whether explicitly passing null clears a field.

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 a single tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the status constraint and partial-update behavior. Every clause contributes useful information with no 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the operation, the applicable statuses, and the update semantics. But it leaves gaps around what the response returns, how null/default values are handled, and what the 409 error implies beyond 'not allowed.'

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. The phrase 'Only fields you pass are changed' adds real meaning by clarifying optional title and config_json behave as a partial update rather than a full replacement. Still, it does not explain the contents or constraints of config_json, nor the null-means-unchanged ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('a report') and narrows scope to reports in 'draft or rejected status.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_draft_report, get_report, and submit_report, so an agent can identify the intended operation without opening the schema.

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 explicitly states when the tool applies ('while it's still in draft or rejected status') and warns that the backend '409s otherwise,' which effectively tells the agent when not to use it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for other statuses, but the status gate is clear enough for basic routing.

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