report_rebind

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

Annotations already indicate this is not a read-only operation, though they mark it as not destructive. The description adds the core behavior of changing the report's data binding, but it doesn't disclose potential side effects such as incompatibility between the report and the new dataset, or whether existing visuals/queries could be impacted.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its target.

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 simple, three-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering safety hints and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It could be more complete by noting prerequisites or outcome details, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parametric details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb, 'Rebind', names both the resource ('a report') and the target ('a different semantic model/dataset'), and clarifies the API context. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like report_update or report_get_datasources.

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 clearly communicates when to use the tool: when a report needs to be pointed at a different semantic model/dataset. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the operation is distinct enough that the intended use is clear without them.

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