save_report_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the captured components and the default page behavior, but it omits critical behavioral traits such as whether saving overwrites an existing template, where the template is persisted, and what the returned value (if any) is. The description adds some context but not enough for full transparency.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a useful parenthetical reference to the inverse tool. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain return behavior and side effects. It covers purpose and some parameter defaults but fails to mention what the tool returns, whether it overwrites, or the format of templateJson, leaving significant gaps for a save operation.

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 67%, with reportSessionId lacking any description. The description only repeats the schema's page default and provides nothing about reportSessionId. It does not explain how the parameters affect the capture or the template bundle, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Save the report's current look as a reusable TEMPLATE bundle' and identifies the exact resources captured (theme, wallpaper, canvas size, nav settings). It also names the inverse tool (apply_report_template), distinguishing it from siblings.

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 description explicitly names an alternative (apply_report_template) and explains that this tool captures the current look for later reapplication. It provides context on what is captured but does not state specific 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' scenarios beyond the inverse relationship.

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