create_users_by_id_report

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), destructiveHint=false (not destructive), and readOnlyHint=false (it's a write operation). The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the endpoint and parameters. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description doesn't contradict them, but it adds little value; it doesn't explain what the report does (e.g., flags a user for moderation) or any side effects. This is a functional tool, so more transparency would be expected.

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 leads with the endpoint, which is good. It includes a brief parameter list, but the 'body' description is terse and requires external lookup. It's not overly verbose, but it could be more structured: separating purpose from parameters would improve readability. The current structure is acceptable but could be clearer.

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 an output schema and open-world hint (openWorldHint=true), the description should explain what the tool returns and any context-specific behaviors. It doesn't mention the output at all, nor does it explain what a 'report' does (e.g., triggers moderation, hides content). The siblings include many similar report tools, so the description needs to clarify the exact action and the meaning of the 'body' payload. With 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, more context is required for an agent to use this 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 0%, and the description provides some parameter semantics: it says 'id' is the slug or 'me', and 'body' is the request payload, advising to read the GET or /schema endpoint to see expected fields. This is helpful for the 'body' parameter, which is an open object with no schema properties. However, it doesn't give details for the 'body' structure itself (e.g., required fields, constraints), relying on external references, which may be vague for an agent without access to those docs. For a required, complex parameter like 'body', more explanation is needed.

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 'Report a user' and provides the endpoint, which indicates the action is to report a user by ID. However, it does not describe the purpose beyond the verb 'report' (e.g., why or when reporting is used), and it does not distinguish itself from other similar report tools like create_comments_by_id_report or create_lists_by_id_report. The term 'report' is somewhat generic, and the description could be clearer about what reporting entails.

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. It does not mention that it is for reporting a user specifically, nor does it contrast with similar report tools for comments, lists, movies, etc. The sibling list includes many other create_*_report tools, so an agent would have to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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