create_comments_by_id_report

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds the POST method and a pointer to discover the body schema, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether reports are anonymous, require authentication, or are rate-limited). There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes the endpoint, the two arguments, and a necessary hint for building the body. No filler or redundancy.

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 report action with an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough to invoke correctly: the resource path, the id parameter, and a route to learn about the body. An agent can proceed without missing critical details, though a little more context about what 'report' implies (e.g., moderation) would make it fully unambiguous.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'id' as 'The id/slug of the resource' and for 'body' it tells the agent to read the GET or /schema endpoint to discover fields. This is useful but stops short of describing the actual body structure; it offloads discovery to runtime rather than giving explicit semantics.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Report a comment.' The endpoint 'POST /comments/{id}/report' confirms the exact action and resource type. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from similar report siblings like create_episodes_by_id_report, but the resource is explicit enough to avoid confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_movies_by_id_report or create_users_by_id_report. It does mention a prerequisite ('Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint...') but fails to state the context or exclusions that would help an agent choose this operation.

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