Workbooks Update Report Contents

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new context: that the call is mutating, that confirm=True is mandatory, and that document_version exists as an optimistic-concurrency guard against overwrites. It doesn't say whether the new contents replace or merge with existing report contents.

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 tight sentences; the core action is front-loaded and the mutation/concurrency caveats follow immediately. No filler or restated annotation material.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the mutation guard is documented, but for a tool with 0% schema coverage and a required nested object the description omits how the contents spec should be constructed and whether the sibling verify_report_spec should be run first.

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 has to carry the load. It meaningfully explains confirm and document_version but treats contents only as "a code representation (JSON document specification)" without describing its shape, despite it being a required nested object.

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 and resource ("Update a report") plus the input form (a JSON document specification), which cleanly separates it from workbooks_update_workbook_contents. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer which update target to choose when both exist.

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?

Gives prerequisite-style context (confirm=True, document_version) but no when-to-use guidance relative to verify_report_spec, get_report, or create_report, and no when-not-to-use warnings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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