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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation, so the agent knows the safety profile. The description adds one useful behavioral fact: the change reappears in history and recent changes. It does not say what happens on an already-unhidden change (idempotency) or what errors to expect, so it adds modest value only.

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 trailing 'in their history and recent changes again' is slightly awkwardly attached and creates brief ambiguity about whether it modifies 'hid' or 'show', but the intent is recoverable in one read.

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 inverse-toggle tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs: the action, the target, and the paired tool. Missing only edge-case behavior (change not hidden, already visible), which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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%, with both uuid and checkId documented as 'Monitor uuid' and 'Check id of the hidden change'. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or format, so the schema carries the full load and 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?

The description gives a concrete verb ('Show ... again') and resource ('a change'), and explicitly identifies the counterpart tool hide_change so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema. It stops short of a maximally sharp statement (the verb 'unhide' from the name is paraphrased rather than restated), so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage context is clear: use this when a change was previously hidden via hide_change and the user wants it visible again in history and recent changes. The inverse relationship to hide_change is named explicitly. There is no stated when-not condition (e.g. what happens if the change was never hidden), which keeps it from a 5.

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