share_report_material

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the important execution gate, 'confirm=true 执行', implying default confirm=false does not execute, but it does not describe the actual consequence of reporting or what confirm=false does beyond implication.

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 two short clauses, front-loads the action, and contains no filler. Every phrase carries operational meaning.

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?

It covers the core action, the reason-code prerequisite, and confirm gating, and an output schema exists for return values. However, for a destructive action it does not explain side effects, whether confirm=false is a dry run, or the purpose of the description parameter.

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 coverage is 50%, with confirm and material_id documented in the schema. The description adds essential meaning for the required reason parameter by tying it to codes returned by the report reasons interface, but it leaves the description parameter unexplained and does not clarify the reason code format.

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 verb and resource, '举报资料' (report material), which clearly separates it from the sibling share_report_comment. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives, but the resource distinction is unambiguous.

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 gives concrete procedural context: fetch the reason code from the material report reasons interface, and set confirm=true to execute. This is clear guidance on prerequisites and execution gating, though it does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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