annotate_report

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a mutation ('add or replace'), that unspecified sections are preserved, and that two artifacts (complete_report.md and .html) are written. It does not disclose whether replaced content is recoverable, what the response looks like, or permission requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the mutation semantics and file targets come before the incidental note about where report_id originates. The parenthetical about pipeline_report is slightly incidental but not wasteful.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what is modified, what is preserved, and which files are affected. The remaining gap is the return/confirmation behavior after the write, which the agent would otherwise need to discover by calling it.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does. It maps three of the four parameters to named sections (fact_check, options_analysis, options_strategy) and explains that omitted sections are left untouched, but it adds nothing about the expected content format or how options_analysis differs from options_strategy.

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 names a specific verb pair ('add or replace'), the exact resource (Options and Fact Check sections of a saved report), and the scope (the persisted report, not a new analysis). That distinguishes it from save_analysis and read_report in the sibling list. Minor deduction because it cites 'pipeline_report' as the source of report_id, which is not among the listed siblings, leaving a small ambiguity about where the id comes from.

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 implies the use case (annotating a report the API pipeline wrote) and states the important partial-update rule, but never explicitly says when to prefer this over save_analysis or read_report. There is no statement of prerequisites such as whether the report must already exist or whether the caller must have written it.

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