update_report

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether this is a full replacement (all five required params suggest the whole report definition is overwritten, so omitted optional fields like `description` may be cleared) or whether write access to the owning website is required, and there is no mention of side effects such as invalidating cached run results.

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?

A single six-word sentence with zero waste, but that length comes from under-specification rather than discipline. For a six-parameter mutation with a nested free-form object, the size is inappropriate to the tool's complexity.

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?

Six parameters, five required, a nested open object, no annotations, and no output schema — this definition should explain replacement semantics, the websiteId scope requirement, and how `parameters` relates to `type`, and it explains none of them. An agent could call it correctly only by guessing at the semantics of the nested object.

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 each parameter and the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond it — notably it never explains the type-to-`parameters` coupling (the free-form JSON object must be shaped according to the chosen `type` enum), which is the one thing the schema cannot express.

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?

"Update an existing saved report" names a verb and a resource and, via the word "existing" plus "saved," rules out create_report and run_report. Beyond that it adds nothing the tool name doesn't already convey: it never says which fields are mutable or whether the update replaces or merges the stored definition.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative (create_report, delete_report, run_report, get_report all go unmentioned). An agent must infer from the name alone that this is for modifying an already-persisted report rather than generating or executing one.

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