write_report

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description explicitly says the report is overwritten every time and warns that a different analysis_id collapsing to the same slug could overwrite an existing report. Overwriting an existing file is a destructive update, so the description contradicts the annotation despite otherwise useful details about directory fallback and collision abort.

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 front-loads the core action, then adds body format, section guidance, overwrite behavior, reference slugs, directory rules, and ID collision handling. It is dense but appropriately sized for a 5-parameter write tool with no schema descriptions.

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 write tool with no output schema, it covers the essential operational context: destination path, overwrite behavior, body format, knowledge refs, directory fallback, and collision abort. It still leaves dataset/status semantics and normal return/notification behavior unspecified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains body (Markdown without frontmatter and recommended section headings), knowledge_refs (cited knowledge/playbook slugs), and analysis_id (ASCII uniqueness and slug collision risk), but does not explain the required dataset or optional status parameters.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: write/overwrite an analysis/interpretation report to reports/<analysis_id>.md, explicitly as both artifact and record. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as read_report, list_reports, and save_figure.

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?

It explains when to call again after findings increase, that the file is overwritten each time, and how to choose the reports directory including fallback behavior. It does not explicitly name read_report/list_reports/save_figure as alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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