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

Annotations declare the tool is not read-only, not open-world, idempotent, and not destructive. The description does not contradict these, but it also doesn't elaborate on the idempotency behavior or what 'queuing' entails (e.g., state changes, side effects). Since annotations already cover the basic safety profile, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context.

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 brief and front-loads the primary action, but the second sentence introduces workflow steps that could be seen as additional context. It's efficient without being terse.

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?

With no output schema and 5 parameters, the description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It doesn't explain the purpose of idempotencyKey, projectId, or sessionId/executionId, nor what happens when the tool is invoked. Given the tool's role in a workflow, more detail is needed.

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 compensate, but it doesn't explain the meaning or purpose of any of the 5 parameters. The description only references 'reportId' indirectly via 'report' but leaves projectId and idempotencyKey unexplained. This is a significant gap for a tool with 5 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 description mentions a specific verb ('queue') and resource ('report'), but the phrase 'for investigation and fixes, reusing its active task' is vague about what the tool actually does. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like queue_report_bug, cancel_queue_item, or update_queue_item, and the purpose is somewhat obscure.

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 gives context on steps to take before and after (read with get_report, verify fixes, update the report), but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like queue_report_bug or update_queue_item. It implies a workflow but lacks explicit when-to-use conditions.

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