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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: the three-flag threshold that hides the content. It omits other relevant behavior such as whether flags are anonymous, whether a user can flag twice, permissions required, or what happens once content is hidden.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its consequence both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema or annotations, the definition covers purpose and the key consequence of repeated flagging. Minor gaps remain around caller permissions and post-hiding behavior, but an agent can call it correctly with what is given.

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 100%, so all three required parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about reason format or id expectations, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (flag) and the exact resources it applies to (a post or guestbook entry), matching the target_type values in the schema. No sibling tool performs flagging, so the agent can identify it immediately.

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?

"that breaks the charter" gives a clear trigger condition for use, telling the agent when flagging is appropriate. It does not mention alternatives (e.g., reply, hide_cache) or when not to flag, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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