create_report_sign_off

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions recording approval and enabling pinning, but does not reveal whether multiple sign-offs are allowed, if sign-offs can be undone, required permissions, or error scenarios. This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

The description is only two sentences, front-loading the main purpose with no extraneous information. It is efficiently structured.

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 presence of an output schema (so return values are covered) and full parameter schema, the description provides a basic overview and a post-condition. However, it lacks important behavioral context such as idempotency, permissions, and error handling, making it adequate but incomplete.

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 additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It does not explain the relationship between action, attestation, and comments.

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 clearly states the tool signs off/reports approval on a report instance, using specific verbs ('Sign off', 'Records approval') and resource ('report instance'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_report_comment (creates comments) and pin_report_comment (pins after sign-off).

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 a sequence (sign off before pinning comments) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_report_sign_offs or get_report_sign_off. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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