nexalayer_report_issue

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

Annotations only cover the safety/idempotency profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: automatic attachment of recent request_ids and error codes, server-side severity assignment with a full S1-S4 rubric, the security redaction/escalation rule for API keys, proxy passwords and full_url, and that the call is free. This is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by prerequisites, then auto-attached context, then return/severity semantics, then the security caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return values (ticket_id, next_check_after_seconds) and the polling path. For a 12-parameter mutation tool it covers prerequisites, side effects, severity logic and security handling, leaving only per-parameter documentation thin.

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 only 17% across 12 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies two important semantics — request_ids/error_codes are auto-attached and severity is server-assigned (weakening the role of severity_claimed) — but leaves category enum meanings, summary, actual/expected, session_id, known_issue_id, desired_outcome and tool unexplained 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 ('File a support ticket with NexaLayer') and immediately separates the tool from the sibling diagnostics it should not replace (nexalayer_check_status, nexalayer_known_issues). An agent can distinguish it from get_ticket and the error-handling siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites ('Use only after following the error's suggested_action and checking nexalayer_check_status and nexalayer_known_issues') and names the follow-up tool ('poll with nexalayer_get_ticket'). It also tells the agent what it does NOT need to supply, which is a form of usage guidance.

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