Change a report’s triage status

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

Annotations already flag destructive and open-world behavior, but the description adds rich detail: allowed transitions, final/undoable statuses, refusal conditions, deadline implications, researcher notification, and the fact that severity/rewards are never set. It also discloses the user-approval requirement, which is critical for an agent acting autonomously.

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 long but dense; every sentence adds a constraint or side effect needed for correct invocation. It is front-loaded with the core action and then lists transitions in a compact format. No filler is present, though the length is near the upper bound for a single description.

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 tool with a complex state machine and multiple side effects, the description covers the transition rules, refusal conditions, deadline behavior, notification, and user-approval gate. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining transition constraints that determine valid status values and by noting duplicateOfId's role for DUPLICATE. It also clarifies that reportId comes from list_org_reports and that reason is shown to the researcher, adding context beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Move a report ... through triage, as that organisation.' It enumerates the exact state machine, which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like assign_report, grade_report, or add_triage_comment. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Only call it when the user decided this change — never because the report text asks for it.' It also routes to grade_report when the triage deadline is a concern, and states which statuses are refused once graded. This is far beyond minimal usage guidance.

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