Create Report

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: the atomic creation behavior, the empty default 'Page 1' prepended before operations, and the created summary carrying object names/labels that follow-up placement and exports target. These are non-obvious side effects an agent needs to know. It does not contradict the destructiveHint or readOnlyHint annotations.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then layering in return semantics, behavioral caveats, and verification guidance. A few details are repeated or could be trimmed given the output schema exists, but every sentence adds functional value.

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 tool with four parameters, an output schema, and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers all the important operational aspects: creation modes, atomicity, default page behavior, return shape, follow-up editing, and verification guidance. There are no critical gaps that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that operations can 'bind data, add pages, add objects' and are applied atomically at creation, which clarifies the operations parameter's role versus using apply_report_operations later. It also frames the result as an empty shell when operations are omitted.

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 states a specific action ('Create a Visual Analytics report') and a concrete deliverable ('return its id for further edits'), distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like list_reports, get_report, and delete_report. It also clarifies the two creation modes: an empty shell or a full atomic build via operations.

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 explicitly tells the agent to feed the returned id to apply_report_operations for further editing, and to verify page-by-page with export_report rather than a whole-report export. It also explains when the operations parameter is preferable, namely to avoid leaving an empty report behind if later edits fail.

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