update_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: it is a write/mutation and each field is a partial update ('omit to leave unchanged'). However, it omits permission requirements, whether a space move is reversible or destructive, and any error/confirmation 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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, flags the write nature second, then lists params. The Args block is slightly redundant with the opening sentence but earns its place by documenting per-parameter behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation nature and all parameter semantics. The remaining gap is behavioral context such as permissions and reversibility, minor for a 4-param update tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names all four parameters and explains the semantics of each, including the optional/null 'omit to leave unchanged' behavior for name, description, and space_token.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (report), and enumerates the mutable fields (name, description, space). It clearly differs from create_report/get_report, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the adjacent sibling update_query.

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 states it is a write operation but gives no guidance on when to reach for this versus update_query, archive_report, or create_report. No prerequisites or selection criteria are offered.

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