conduyt_create_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. What it offers ('contacts/deals support rollup columns, cf:<key>, Smart View population, groupBy2') largely restates constraints already written in the groupBy2 and population parameter descriptions; it says nothing about required permissions, sharing/visibility consequences of isShared/isPrivate, duplicate-name handling, or creation failure modes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by capability notes. Every clause carries information, though the feature list reads slightly like a schema summary rather than guidance.

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?

This is a 17-parameter mutation with a nested pivot object, no annotations, and no output schema. The description never explains the apparently dual modeling paths (legacy aggregate/measureField/groupBy/timeGrain/chartType versus the newer pivot object) or how they interact, which is the single biggest ambiguity an agent faces when calling this 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 coverage is only 53% across 17 parameters, so the description ideally should compensate more. It does add real value by pointing to conduyt_report_fields as the source of valid field names, which applies to columns, filters, groupBy, and sortBy, and by naming the rollup/cf:<key> field classes.

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 and resource ('Create a saved custom report'), which is clearly distinct from run/preview/update report siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the closely-related conduyt_create_report_schedule or conduyt_create_dashboard, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 'see conduyt_report_fields' pointer gives a usable prerequisite for discovering valid column/field names, implying the intended call sequence. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus conduyt_update_report, conduyt_preview_report, or conduyt_create_report_schedule, and no exclusions.

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