conduyt_update_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: partial-update semantics and that null removes the pivot. It omits permissions requirements (who may update a shared report), whether updates are reversible, and side effects on schedules/deliveries that reference the report.

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 verb and resource, then the pivot exception, then the patch-semantics rule. No filler and no redundancy with the schema.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, this description is thin. It leaves most field semantics and all authorization/error behavior unaddressed.

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 18% across 17 parameters, so the description must compensate. It gives a useful mental model ('any create field, plus pivot') and clarifies null-means-remove for pivot, but says nothing about the many undocumented fields (columns, filters, groupBy, population, measures, timeGrain, isShared/isPrivate interactions).

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 ('Update a saved custom report') and scopes it as parity with the create surface plus pivot. It does not name conduyt_create_report or conduyt_update_saved_filter as siblings, but an agent can still tell what this tool mutates.

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?

'Only the fields you pass change' establishes patch semantics, which is genuinely useful usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., create_report, preview_report), no prerequisite (an id from conduyt_list_reports is only implied via the schema), and no statement of when not to use it.

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