Datasets Swap Report Sources

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false) and safety (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), lowering the bar. The description confirms a swap/mutation but adds nothing about reversibility, permissions, or what a swap affects on existing report state, which is relevant given the destructive potential of replacing data sources.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then parameter guidance. Zero filler; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a mutation with 0% schema coverage, the description omits the shape of the mapping entries an agent must construct and any note on reversibility or policy requirements, leaving a real gap before invocation.

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. It does explain the role of the two optional mapping parameters (connection-level vs table-level), which is more than the schema offers. However, it says nothing about the structure of the mapping objects or the required report_id, and it uses camelCase names that differ slightly from the schema's snake_case.

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 specific verb+resource ('Swap data sources on a report'), and the resource 'report' implicitly separates it from sibling swaps like datasets_swap_data_model_sources and elements_swap_workbook_sources. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named despite the presence of closely related swap tools in the sibling list. The 'Use connectionMapping...sourceMapping...' sentence is configuration direction, not tool-selection guidance.

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