report_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description is consistent with them. The description adds the scope of mutation (name/description fields) beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose partial-update semantics, whether at least one mutable field is required, or validation behavior.

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 seven-word sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple — four flat parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations present — so the bar is not high. However, the description omits two operationally relevant points: it does not differentiate from report_update_definition, and it does not clarify whether a call with only the required parameters (workspaceId, reportId) is valid or a no-op given displayName and description are optional.

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% — all four parameters (workspaceId, reportId, displayName, description) are already documented in the schema. The description merely echoes the 'name or description' scope and adds no additional meaning about formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (update), resource (report), and the exact fields affected (name or description), so an agent can grasp the operation's scope at a glance. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling report_update_definition, leaving ambiguity between updating report metadata versus the report 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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling report_update_definition is very close in name and purpose, yet the description offers no differentiation, exclusions, or conditions to route an agent to the correct tool.

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