deploy_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the write nature, the destructive replace default, and the BIP Author role requirement, which are critical behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 compact docstring with a clear summary line followed by a structured Args listing. No redundant text; every line adds needed detail.

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 write tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, destructive behavior, and role prerequisites. It misses explicit guidance on when to prefer other tools, but is otherwise complete given the complexity.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 0%, the Args section provides detailed meaning for every parameter: name restrictions, an example dm_path, the replace behavior, and the default fusion_user role. This far exceeds the schema's type-only info.

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 deploys a BIP report (.xdo) linked to a data model, uses a specific verb 'Deploy', and calls out 'WRITE operation' to distinguish it from read-oriented sibling tools like query_fusion and run_report.

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 doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It implies usage through the 'WRITE operation' note and the replace parameter behavior, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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