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

Adds rich behavioral detail beyond annotations: it discloses the creation of a workflow_executions row on first call, subsequent appends to Activity timeline rows, the entity types that receive the action, identity rules (test vs entityIdentity), and special completion semantics. This is substantial context for a mutating tool whose annotations only state it is non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world.

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?

Dense but well-structured single paragraph. Every sentence carries useful information; the core purpose and critical identity rules are front-loaded, and lists of enums are inline without wasted words.

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's complexity (19 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the most critical behavioral and identity semantics needed for correct invocation. It still leaves many optional parameter details and the traceability object unexplained, but the core usage and side effects are adequately conveyed.

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 schema description coverage at 11%, the description must compensate. It explains key parameters like entityType, actionType, workflowExecutionId, test, and entityIdentity, but leaves many of the 19 parameters (workflowId, botId, traceability, actorType, etc.) undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Report') and resource ('mutating agent action'), and details the side effect of creating workflow_executions rows and appending Activity timeline rows. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling reporting tools (e.g., report-scan-findings), so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Provides operational context about sequencing ('First call for an id creates... later calls append'), which implies how to use it. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it; no siblings are named for contrast.

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