upsert_definition_tool

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

The description discloses that this is a mutation operation and adds a meaningful design trait: owner_agent is identity data, not code, allowing re-homing without rebuild. However, with no annotations provided, it does not describe overwrite/replacement semantics, permissions, or other side effects of updating an existing definition.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, followed by a single valuable design nuance. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The presence of a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions reduces the burden on the description. Still, because annotations are absent, the description should clarify update behavior more explicitly, such as whether an update replaces or merges the existing definition. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema already documents all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining that owner_agent is data rather than code, which is not stated in the schema itself.

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: 'Create or update a report definition.' This unambiguously distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_reports_tool, get_spec_tool, save_output_tool, and get_output_tool.

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 intended use is implied by the resource and operation, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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