report_compliance

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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses item-by-item processing where a bad item is logged and skipped while the call still succeeds, warns that updated/total counts in the response must be checked, and notes the compliance-enabled-server and no-API-key requirements. Annotations only say non-readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive; the partial-success semantics are the genuinely useful addition.

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?

Purpose and the session_start linkage are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct information (what to report, partial-failure behavior, prerequisites). It is dense but slightly overloaded, packing prerequisites and response-checking into a single block rather than separating them.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by telling the agent what the response contains (updated/total counts) and that it must be inspected. Prerequisites, auth expectations, and partial-failure behavior are all covered, so nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameter descriptions already explain inject_session_id and the reports list, so the schema carries the load. The description restates these ('a previous injection session returned by session_start', 'optional evidence') rather than adding new syntax, batching limits, or constraints, so 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 ('Report compliance') and anchors it to a concrete source of input ('a previous injection session returned by session_start'), then clarifies the action as marking injected memories followed or violated. That distinguishes it from the read-side sibling get_compliance_report without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('Call this to mark which injected memories were followed or violated') and the prerequisite that the session id comes from a prior session_start. It does not explicitly name get_compliance_report as the read-only alternative or state when not to call it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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