report_set_header

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

The description's 'update' aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true). It does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as overwriting existing content or any side effects. With annotations covering mutation and idempotency, the description adds minimal extra value.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. No wasted words, and it conveys the essential information in minimal space, making it easy to parse.

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 tool has no required parameters and an output schema exists, the description is still thin. It lacks usage guidance, parameter details beyond a high-level mapping, and any mention of side effects or prerequisites. For a mutation tool with several siblings, this is insufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 0%, so the description must clarify the parameters. It maps 'intro' to '简介' (introduction) and 'key_points' to '重点' (key points), which provides some semantic grounding. However, it doesn't explain the format or constraints beyond the schema's basic types, leaving some ambiguity about how key_points should be structured.

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 action: updating the report header's introduction and key points. It specifies the resource (report header) and the fields involved, which helps distinguish it from sibling write tools that likely modify other report aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling write tools like report_write_decision or report_write_fix. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. Given the many sibling tools, this is a notable gap.

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