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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description clarifies the crucial semantics of this mutation: nothing is deleted, the change remains visible to teammates, and the action is reversible via unhide_change. That directly answers the agent's main risk question about a non-read-only operation.

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 dense sentence with the effect front-loaded, followed by the deletion/visibility clarification and the recovery path. No filler, and every clause carries actionable 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, scope, non-destructiveness, and reversibility. The only minor gap is what the call returns on success, which the agent must infer.

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 uuid and checkId are already documented, including the hint that checkId comes from get_recent_changes or get_check_history. The description adds no further meaning about either parameter, so the baseline 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?

"Hide one detected change from this user's history and recent changes" gives a specific verb (hide), a specific resource (one detected change), and the exact scope (this user's history and recent-changes views). The parenthetical example of a false alarm makes the intent unmistakable, and it is clearly distinct from sibling unhide_change.

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 supplies a concrete scenario (a false alarm) and explicitly names the inverse tool unhide_change plus includeHidden for retrieving hidden entries, which effectively routes the agent between hide and unhide. It stops short of stating prerequisites or when-not-to-use, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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