report-video-abuse

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states the 50-quota-unit cost and the irreversible outward nature of the action, which are critical behavioral traits. It does not mention response behavior or permissions, but the key consequences are covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and critical caveats. Every word earns its place—no fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost, irreversibility, and confirmation requirement. It doesn't explain response or edge cases, but for a report action with 6 well-documented parameters, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 all parameters. The description adds emphasis on confirm being required but does not introduce new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Report a video to YouTube') with a specific resource ('video') and purpose ('for abuse/policy violation'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes this from the related sibling 'list-video-abuse-report-reasons'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool, including the prerequisite that confirm must be true and that it is an irreversible outward action. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the mention of fetching reasonId via the sibling tool gives implicit guidance.

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