Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Work with...' and provides no side-effect information. It does not mention that generate can start long-running jobs, that confirm=True triggers generation, that failures may be partial, or that auth/quota failures stop remaining work. This is a serious transparency gap for a tool with mutating actions.

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 short but structurally defective: the sentence 'Then:' is an incomplete fragment that cuts off mid-thought, and 'Unified report tool.' is filler that does not earn its place. Good conciseness should still produce complete sentences; this does not.

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?

Despite a rich schema and output schema, the free-text description is a fragment that ends with 'Then:' and never completes its guidance. For a complex tool with three action modes, approval semantics, and partial-failure behavior, the description alone would leave an agent under-informed about when and how to invoke it safely.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly, including action-specific behaviors, defaults, and safety notes. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource ('an interactive report's embedded elements') and correctly points to studio_create for report creation, which distinguishes this tool from the creation workflow. However, 'Work with' and 'Unified report tool' are generic labels rather than a specific verb like 'list', 'generate', or 'read', so the core action remains somewhat underspecified.

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 gives clear context that this tool operates on an already-created interactive report and explicitly routes creation to studio_create. It does not state exclusions relative to other report-related siblings like studio_revise or notebook_query, but the 'Then:' phrasing establishes the intended sequential usage.

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