update_reports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '更新します' (updates) implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to existing reports not mentioned in the update, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or structural complexity. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates.

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 mutation tool with complex nested parameters (3 parameters with deep nesting) and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or response format that would help an agent understand how to use this tool effectively in context.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are well-documented in the structured schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the verb ('更新します' - updates) and resource ('kintoneアプリのグラフ設定' - Kintone app graph settings), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_views' or 'update_app_settings' that also modify Kintone app configurations, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'update_views' and 'update_app_settings' that modify different aspects of Kintone apps, there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be chosen over other update operations.

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