Report Video

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is not read-only but not destructive. The description adds rate limits and return value ('Report confirmation'), but does not disclose whether reports are anonymous or if multiple reports for the same video are allowed. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description provides some additional 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 two sentences plus a bullet list of args and return. It is highly concise with no wasted words. The structure is clear: purpose, rate limit, parameter list, return value.

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 reporting tool, the description covers purpose, rate limits, required and optional parameters, and return value. No output schema exists, but the return value is stated. Some minor details (e.g., anonymity, duplicate report handling) are missing, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use 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 baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter names and constraints (e.g., max 500 chars for description) already present in the schema. It does not add new semantic meaning beyond listing the allowed reasons in the description text.

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 tool's purpose: 'Report a video for violating community guidelines.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, and it effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'neptime_rate_video' or 'neptime_delete_video.'

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 mentions rate limits (10 reports/hour, 50/day), providing clear context for usage. It does not specify when not to use or alternatives, but no sibling tool serves the same function, so the guidance is adequate.

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