Report a problem

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the report is sent to the Apify team and includes a clear warning: 'Do NOT include personal data, credentials, secrets, or verbatim private conversation content.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema/annotations. However, it doesn't detail any side effects or confirmation behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by clear bullet-point usage conditions and a concise instruction. Each sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff, staying around 80 words while conveying all key information.

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 simple reporting tool with high schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to invoke it, and how to safely compose the message. It does not need to explain the return value because the output schema would cover that, and no additional caveats are required for this use case.

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?

The schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining how to compose the required message: 'Put what you were doing and what went wrong in "message"' and by instructing users to avoid sensitive data. The optional parameters are not elaborated, but the schema covers them sufficiently.

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 'Report a problem with Apify's MCP tools or Actors to the Apify team.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on searching, calling, or fetching actors/data. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

It explicitly lists conditions: 'Call it when: A tool or Actor is missing, errors, times out, or returns a confusing, wrong, or empty result. You cannot complete the user's request with the available tools.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies alternatives are the operational tools. It also instructs what to include in the message.

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