Review a public content report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation with three outcomes, but never states whether hide/restore are reversible, what happens to the reported content or reporter, or any permission requirements. Only the bare decision set is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the actor, resource, and outcome set all appear in one clause. It is appropriately terse for the operation, though the brevity leaves gaps rather than being wasteful.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. Side effects, authorization, reversibility, and expected outcomes are all missing, leaving the agent to guess at consequences.

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%, three required parameters. The description partially compensates by naming the actor (审核者 → reviewer_id), the target (公开内容举报 → report_id), and the three decision values that match the enum. However, it adds no constraint details (length bounds, ID format) beyond what the schema already enforces.

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 names a specific verb (作出...决定 - makes a decision) and resource (公开内容举报 - public content report) carried out by a reviewer, and enumerates the three possible outcomes (驳回/隐藏/恢复). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like report_public_content (filing) and list_public_reports (reading), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus report_public_content or list_public_reports, nor any stated preconditions such as required reviewer privileges or which decisions are permitted in which state. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the name.

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