report_update_definition

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

The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it reads definition files from a specified directory and updates the full definition. It does not disclose whether the existing definition is overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response contains. Given the annotations only indicate that this is not read-only, fuller disclosure would be valuable.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. Both sentences carry distinct information: what is updated and where the input comes from. The structure is appropriately front-loaded.

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 operation with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It is missing guidance on how this tool differs from sibling tools like report_update and report_create_definition, and it does not explain overwrite behavior or expected outcomes, but an agent can likely invoke it correctly once selected.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context by clarifying that definitionDirectoryPath is where definition files are read from and that PBIR-Legacy is supported, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('Update a report's full definition') and names the formats (PBIR or PBIR-Legacy), which helps distinguish it from property-level updates like report_update. It does not explicitly contrast with report_create_definition, but 'update' versus 'create' is reasonably clear.

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 usage context is implied: use this when a report's full definition needs to be replaced from local definition files. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over report_update, report_create_definition, or report_get_definition, and no prerequisites or caveats are mentioned.

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