report_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the user approval requirement through the confirm parameter, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when source_ids is null. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement followed by parameter explanations in a clear Args section. Each sentence adds value, though the confirm requirement is stated twice ('Requires confirm=True after user approval' and 'Must be True after user approval'), creating minor redundancy. Overall, it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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's complexity (6 parameters, 1 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description provides good coverage. It explains all parameters meaningfully and includes important behavioral constraints (user approval requirement). The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, making this reasonably complete for the context.

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 description adds substantial semantic value beyond the 0% schema description coverage. It explains that notebook_id is a 'Notebook UUID', source_ids defaults to 'all' sources, report_format has specific options with 'Create Your Own' requiring custom_prompt, language uses BCP-47 codes, and confirm requires user approval. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't fully explain all parameter nuances.

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 as 'Generate report' with specific resource context (notebook and sources). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'flashcards_create', 'quiz_create', or 'slide_deck_create' by focusing on report generation rather than other educational content types. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'audio_overview_create' or 'video_overview_create' which might also produce report-like content.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Requires confirm=True after user approval' and 'Must be True after user approval' for the confirm parameter. This clearly indicates when to use the tool (after obtaining user approval) and establishes a prerequisite condition. The description effectively communicates the approval workflow requirement.

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