acedatacloud_report_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states the basic action and does not mention that 'confirm' must be true, whether the submission is irreversible, or what server-side behavior occurs. For a mutation-like tool, this is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence with no filler and a clear, front-loaded verb. It is highly concise, though arguably under-specified. There is no wasted wording, which earns a strong score on this dimension.

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 six parameters, a confirmation flag, no annotations, and a large sibling set, a one-sentence description is insufficient for confident invocation. It does not explain when confirmation is required, what the snapshot represents, or the expected outcome, even though an output schema exists. The tool would likely require external documentation to use 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?

The input schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to redefine them. However, the description adds no contextual meaning beyond the schema—for example, what 'snapshot' or 'service' actually represent in this scenario. The high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and a clear object ('moderation report for AI-generated content'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling tools, none of which appear to target moderation reporting. The action and resource are clearly identified.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. The sibling list contains no similar report tool, but the description itself does nothing to help an agent decide when to invoke it. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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