team_report_member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context not in annotations: the record is explicitly marked as 'reported' (i.e., unverified) and that actor IDs are conventions rather than authenticated identities, a meaningful trust caveat for a write tool. It remains silent on repeat-call behavior (duplicate vs. upsert on memberId), what happens to prior state for the same member, and failure modes — gaps that matter for a 14-parameter write.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its labeling, followed by the disambiguation clause. No filler. The negative list is dense but each item rules out a plausible misreading of the tool name.

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?

A 14-parameter, 14-required-by-4 write tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema demands more than three sentences. Nothing tells the agent which optional fields (evidence, tokenTotal, durationMs, spawnCallId) to supply or when, nor what a successful call returns or how to recover from rejection. The trust caveat is good but the operational picture is incomplete.

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% across 14 parameters, so the description must carry the explanatory load and does not. Only a glancing nod exists ("actor IDs are conventions"), with no explanation of what memberId, hostId, nativeIdSource, runtimeRef, or evidence mean or how required fields interact. An agent cannot determine from prose what distinguished a valid report from a malformed one.

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 and resource ("Record a caller-reported member and state") plus a storage qualifier (labeled reported). The explicit "Does not create, verify, resume, or control a native agent" separates it from agent-control siblings like team_bind_agent_activity or team_request_execution. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer for native-agent lifecycle work, but an agent can tell this is a bookkeeping write, not a control call.

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 a negative usage boundary — this is not for creating, verifying, resuming, or controlling a native agent — which is useful exclusion guidance. However, it never states the positive condition for choosing this tool (e.g., when to file a report versus calling team_bind_agent_activity or team_snapshot), nor any prerequisite such as an existing board. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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