keyso_post_report_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool creates a report and returns an ID, but it does not mention what the request body must contain, whether the operation is asynchronous, what side effects occur, or how the response is structured. This is minimal for a mutating endpoint.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The method and path are explicitly stated, which is useful even if partially redundant with the tool name. No unnecessary filler is present.

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?

Given the empty body schema, absence of an output schema, and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to construct a valid request. It does not explain required body properties, report type semantics, or how the returned ID relates to the many sibling report-group endpoints.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: body is only described as 'JSON body', and token/base_url are already self-explanatory. It does not clarify what fields the JSON body should include.

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 states a clear action (creating a report) and identifies the resource via the explicit path /report/group. It also mentions the key output (an identifier for further interaction). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling creation tools like keyso_post_report_system_keywords, but the resource path and tool name add enough specificity.

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 description implies the intended workflow: create a report and use the returned identifier for later report interactions. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over other report-creation or report-retrieval siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives.

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