set_cross_report_drillthrough

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the exact settings written (pageBinding.referenceScope=CrossReport and useCrossReportDrillthrough) and advises verifying in Desktop, which adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 at three sentences, front-loads the purpose, and each sentence adds value: purpose, implementation detail, and a prerequisite/verification note. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, internal changes, and a prerequisite. It lacks error/edge-case handling details, but the provided information is sufficient for typical usage, making it reasonably 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 schema covers two of three parameters with descriptions (page and enable), and the description reinforces their meaning through context. However, reportSessionId is left undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not fully compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 enables or disables cross-report drill-through on a drill-through page, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like set_page_type and set_drillthrough_fields by focusing on the cross-report targeting behavior.

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 provides clear context by stating the page should already be set to drillthrough type with carried fields, implying when this tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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