affinity_report_sdk_issue

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the issue must be 'confirmed' and that a code reproduction is optional, but it doesn't say where the report goes, whether it leaves the local environment, or what happens if the same issue is reported twice despite idempotentHint=false.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead. The economy is fine, though the single sentence is doing little beyond the name.

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 a two-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description doesn't explain what a caller gets back (confirmation, ticket ID, nothing) or what a good 'description' payload looks like. Given the tool's low complexity, the minimum viable bar is met, but only just.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it: it identifies 'code' as optional reproduction code but never says what 'description' should contain (steps, expected vs actual, version). 'description' is also the required field, and that requirement is not reinforced or elaborated.

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: 'Report a confirmed Affinity SDK issue', which is distinct from the SDK documentation/hint siblings. It doesn't explicitly contrast with affinity_add_sdk_hint, which is the closest-looking alternative, but the action and object are 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?

The word 'confirmed' implies the issue should be verified before reporting, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given. It never mentions affinity_add_sdk_hint or affinity_search_sdk_hints, so an agent has to guess whether reporting an issue and adding a hint are different actions or the same.

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