share_report_comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious gating behavior that nothing happens unless confirm=true, which is exactly the kind of extra context that matters for a destructive call. It stops short of saying what a report actually does (removal vs. moderation queue) or whether it is reversible.

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 clauses, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the execution gate last. It is telegraphic rather than explanatory, but every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety, leaving the description to explain invocation — which it mostly does. The remaining gap is consequence: for a destructive report action, an agent still cannot tell what happens to the comment after a successful call, and one of four parameters has no documentation anywhere.

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 only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates for the biggest gap: the `reason` parameter is undocumented in the schema, and the description explains that it must be a code returned by the report-reasons endpoint. `confirm` and `comment_id` are already covered by the schema, but the `description` parameter remains undocumented in both places.

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 ("举报评论" / report a comment), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like share_report_material or share_delete_comment. It does not name the sibling, but the reference to "举报原因接口" implicitly points to share_get_comment_report_reasons.

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?

It implies a two-step workflow — get a valid code from the report-reasons endpoint, then pass confirm=true to actually execute — which is real usage guidance. However, it never explains when to report versus delete/rate/block a comment, and the prerequisite is left implicit rather than stated as a call ordering.

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