Report an account or status

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this is a human-facing moderation channel and that confirm:true is mandatory. It also reveals optional forwarding behavior (forward flag), which helps agents understand consequences.

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?

Three short sentences carry the essential message: what the tool does, the forwarding option, and the mandatory confirmation. No redundant detail or filler.

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 full schema coverage of parameters and no output schema, the description is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It captures the core behavior, the human-moderation consequence, and the confirm requirement.

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?

All 8 parameters are fully described in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds only the confirm requirement and optional statuses at a high level, which is already reflected in the 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 clearly states the action ('Report an account'), the target audience ('your instance's moderators'), and the optional extension to specific statuses. This distinguishes it from sibling moderation actions like block_account or mute_account because it is specifically the reporting workflow.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when an account should be brought to human moderators, with optional forwarding. It does not explicitly contrast against alternatives, but the reporting action is unique among siblings, and the confirmation requirement is stated.

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