Create Crash Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two genuine behavioral traits not in the schema: fingerprint-based grouping and automatic regression detection on resolved groups. However, it omits auth requirements, idempotency/dedupe behavior, and what a submission returns, which matter for a 14-param write tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the secondary grouping detail.

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?

A mutation tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs more than two sentences. Missing prerequisite ordering, auth assumptions, and post-submit behavior leave gaps an agent cannot fill from structured fields alone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 14 parameters thoroughly, including the enum and nested breadcrumbs/customKeys constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Submits a crash report to horizOn') and adds scope via the fingerprint-grouping sentence. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like horizon_create_log or horizon_create_crash_session, which the sessionId param implies is a prerequisite.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance appears in the description. The dependency on horizon_create_crash_session exists only in the schema's sessionId description, not in the tool description itself.

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