create_seasons_by_id_report

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:false, idempotentHint:true, openWorldHint:true (partial). The description states the action 'report' which implies it creates a report or flags the resource, which aligns with readOnlyHint:false (it's a write operation) and not destructive. It adds that the body fields should be read from the matching GET endpoint, providing context on what to send. It does not detail side effects (e.g., what happens after reporting) but annotations cover the safety profile partially (not destructive, idempotent).

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 short and front-loads the purpose with the endpoint and HTTP method, followed by parameter definitions. It is concise with no filler, but the guidance to read GET endpoints is placed after parameter definitions, which is acceptable. The structure is rational for the given 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?

Given the tool has only two parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential call pattern but relies heavily on external references (GET and /schema) for body content. For a reporting operation, it should clarify what constitutes a valid report (e.g., reason, comment) to avoid misuseikuha, but the pointer to GET is a workaround. The output schema may provide return information, so completeness is moderate.

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%, and the description provides minimal parameter info: it says 'id' is the id/slug and 'body' is the request payload but doesn't explain the structure beyond pointing to the GET endpoint. The schema shows 'body' is an object with additionalProperties true, so the fields are not predefined, and the description's guidance to read the GET endpoint is necessary. However, it doesn't describe any specific fields or formatting, leaving the agent to infer them from the referenced endpoints.

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 it reports a season via POST /seasons/{id}/report, and the name 'create_seasons_by_id_report' aligns with that. It specifies the resource (season) and the action (report), distinguishing it from other report tools for different resources (e.g., create_movies_by_id_report). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the resource is clear.

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 instructs to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to know the fields the body expects, giving clear context for what to do before calling. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, the instruction to consult the GET endpoint implies this is for reporting a season when that action is needed, and the presence of sibling report tools for other resources provides implicit context.

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