flag_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool flags nodes for review, implying a mutation that triggers moderation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether flagging is reversible, what permissions are required, how flags are processed, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and purpose, and the parenthetical examples add useful context without verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain what happens after flagging (e.g., response format, success indicators, or error cases), nor does it cover permissions, side effects, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool that modifies system state, this leaves significant gaps.

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 schema already documents both parameters (id and reason) adequately. The description adds marginal value by implying the reason should relate to moderation issues (spam, outdated, incorrect), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or examples beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Flag') and resource ('knowledge node') with the purpose 'for moderation review' and provides examples of reasons (spam, outdated, incorrect). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_node or edit_node by focusing on reporting rather than direct modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from vote_node which might also involve feedback mechanisms.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_node (for removal), edit_node (for correction), or vote_node (for rating). It mentions moderation review but doesn't specify prerequisites, permissions, or typical scenarios for flagging versus other actions.

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