report_create

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. It reveals the confirm requirement (user approval needed) and format-specific constraints (custom_prompt required for 'Create Your Own'), which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it doesn't disclose other important aspects like whether this is a long-running operation, what happens to existing reports, or what permissions are required.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose and key requirement. The Args section is well-structured but could be more integrated with the opening sentence. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting could be slightly more polished.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description provides good coverage of key constraints and requirements. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers most critical aspects but could benefit from more context about the operation's nature (e.g., synchronous vs. asynchronous).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining parameter semantics: it clarifies that 'source_ids' defaults to all sources, lists the four report_format options, specifies when 'custom_prompt' is required, explains 'language' uses BCP-47 codes, and emphasizes the 'confirm' requirement. However, it doesn't explain the 'notebook_id' parameter beyond its name.

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 tool's purpose: 'Generate report' with specific resource context (notebook and sources). It distinguishes from siblings like 'slide_deck_create' or 'quiz_create' by focusing on report generation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar content-generation tools like 'video_overview_create' or 'infographic_create' beyond the format options.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Requires confirm=True after user approval' and specifies when 'custom_prompt' is required (for 'Create Your Own' format). It also implies when to use this tool (for report generation) versus alternatives like 'slide_deck_create' or 'quiz_create' for other content types.

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