athena_report_safety_flag

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 discloses that the tool is non-blocking and each flag requires one call. It also implies the tool is a logging action by describing what to include (rule, severity, etc.). It does not mention auth requirements or data persistence, but for a simple logging tool this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no redundant words. The purpose is front-loaded ('Record that...'), followed by usage guidance ('Call this every time...'), and constraints ('One call per flag. Non-blocking'). Every sentence adds essential information.

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 simple logging tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, what data to include (via example parameters), and behavioral notes (non-blocking, one call per flag). No gaps remain that would leave an agent unsure of how to invoke it.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already documented. The description adds semantic value by specifying the canonical set for 'rule' and providing example anti-patterns, clarifying that 'context' must contain no PII, and explaining severity levels. This exceeds the schema's descriptions and helps the agent choose correct values.

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 the specific action (record/proactively report) and resource (athenahealth safety rule firing). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by being a logging mechanism for safety rule flags, while siblings are for listing, searching, explaining, etc. The phrasing 'Record that a proactive athenahealth safety rule fired during this interaction' is precise.

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 explicitly tells when to call the tool: 'every time you flag an anti-pattern from the SKILL.md safety rules'. It also specifies 'One call per flag' and 'Non-blocking — never delays your response.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough to avoid misuse.

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