Sigma Update Report Contents

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

The description discloses 'Mutating operation' (consistent with readOnlyHint: false), the mandatory confirm=True requirement, and the document_version concurrency guard against overwrites. These are substantive behavioral details beyond what the annotations provide, enabling an agent to avoid failed or clobbering calls. It does not describe conflict behavior (e.g., what error surfaces when document_version is stale), which is a minor gap.

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 sentences, roughly 35 words, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first line and the behavioral requirements in a tightly packed second paragraph. Every sentence adds unique information and there is zero fluff or restatement of the tool name.

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 basic call the description is sufficient: it names the inputs' roles (report_id, contents, document_version, confirm) and has an output schema so return values are covered. However, it omits the surrounding workflow (verifying a spec before updating), the consequences of a stale version, and any guidance on the nested contents object's shape. These gaps matter for a mutating tool with a nested open-ended parameter.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the compensation burden. It explains the purpose of document_version (concurrency guard), confirm (required to be true), and contents (JSON document specification format). However, report_id is left entirely to the schema, and the structure or provenance of a valid contents spec (e.g., retrieve via get_report, validate via verify_report_spec) is not elaborated. Partial but meaningful compensation.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update a report') and adds the format qualifier 'from a code representation (JSON document specification)', which distinguishes this from field-level edits. It does not explicitly differentiate from the closely analogous sibling sigma_update_workbook_contents, but the tool name itself makes the resource distinction clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Crucially, it does not point to sigma_verify_report_spec as a complement (validate a spec before applying it) or sigma_create_report as the alternative for new reports. The update intent is implied, but there are no exclusions or routing cues.

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