create_people_by_id_report

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a useful behavioral note: to consult the GET or /schema endpoint for expected fields, which clarifies the need for external documentation. However, it does not disclose what the report action does (e.g., whether it notifies moderators, is reversible, or has side effects) beyond what annotations cover.

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 short but is under-specified rather than concisely effective. The opening 'Report a person' is too vague, and the rest is a terse list of arguments without elaboration. It is structured clearly but fails to deliver necessary information in a compact yet sufficient manner.

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?

Given the tool has nested objects, an output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is far from complete. It offloads critical information to external endpoints (GET /schema) without even hinting at the return shape. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without additional investigations, making it incomplete for a well-defined operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains 'id' as 'the id/slug of the resource' but for 'body' it merely says 'Request payload' and points to the GET /schema endpoint for details. This defers understanding rather than providing actual semantics, leaving the body structure unexplained and requiring the agent to perform extra lookups.

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 'Report a person' is ambiguous—it could mean either retrieving a report or submitting one. The endpoint 'POST /people/{id}/report' implies a write operation, and the tool name includes 'create', but the description does not explicitly state that it creates a report. It also does not differentiate from siblings like create_movies_by_id_report or create_comments_by_id_report, which share a similar pattern.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only instructs to read the GET or /schema endpoint to understand the request body, which is a preparation step but not a usage condition. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present.

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