analytics_report_requests_create_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no indication of what the created request triggers, whether it is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. The only behavioral signal is the implicit 'POST = mutation', which comes from the raw HTTP verb rather than an explicit statement.

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?

It is short and front-loads the endpoint, but it wastes words by stating the identical path twice in parentheses, and every sentence is low value. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 create operation with a nested JSON:API envelope (additionalProperties: {}, i.e. opaque), no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without the body structure it needs to actually invoke the tool. Deferring to an external OpenAPI component the agent may not have access to is not sufficient.

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?

There is a single required body parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter and the baseline of 3 applies. The description only repeats the schema's own pointer to components.schemas.AnalyticsReportRequestCreateRequest, adding no additional semantic detail about the fields.

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 essentially restates the HTTP verb and path ('POST /v1/analyticsReportRequests'), which conveys that a report request is created but explains nothing about what an analytics report request is or what creating one accomplishes. It offers no differentiation from siblings such as analytics_report_requests_get_instance, analytics_report_requests_delete_instance, or analytics_report_requests_reports_get_to_many_relationship. This is close to a tautology of the tool name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling analytics/newer-report tools. The only 'guidance' is a pointer to the OpenAPI schema for request body shape, which is not usage context.

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