report_phishing_attempt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the HTTP POST method and how parameters are routed, making the mutation explicit. But it omits side effects, idempotency, authorization needs, or reversibility, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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, each earning its place: purpose, endpoint, and parameter placement. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with generic input schema, the description gives a useful high-level invocation pattern but leaves the agent to infer concrete payload fields and prerequisites. The output schema covers return values, so that is not a gap, but side effects and exact body requirements remain unclear.

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 is fully generic with 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by mapping each opaque bucket to a role: route IDs in path_params, filtering/pagination/sorting/include in query, and JSON:API payload in body. Exact parameter names are still absent, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Mark a phishing attempt reported using a code or message ID,' and reinforces it with the exact endpoint. The sibling tools are dominated by list/get/delete operations, so this report action is clearly distinguishable.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when a phishing attempt needs to be marked reported using a code or message ID. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, such as first finding the attempt via list_phishing_campaign_attempts.

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