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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the actual effect of the flag: which listings filter the project out, that a 'Show hidden' control reveals it, and that search/retrieval tools still surface the content. This is exactly the kind of consequence-level detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence carries real information. The parenthetical enumeration of four UI surfaces is slightly verbose but earns its place by making the blast radius concrete.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description covers what the flag does, what it does not affect, and the value convention. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly without guessing about side effects.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the tenant_slug fallback guidance. The description only restates the boolean's meaning rather than adding format or edge-case semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Toggle a project's hidden flag') and immediately defines what 'hidden' means in terms of concrete surfaces (browse listings, sidebar, picker). An agent can distinguish this from kb_projects_pin_toggle and kb_projects_archive without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent which values to pass ('hidden=true to hide, false to unhide') and clarifies the scope decision by noting hidden does NOT affect search or agent retrieval. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling kb_projects_pin_toggle, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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