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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description earns credit for adding what those hints do not say: the change affects what the public sees, it is reversible via hidden=false, and an account's own comments cannot be hidden. It does not mention permission/scope requirements or how failures surface, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences with the effect and the true/false mapping front-loaded, followed by platform scope and the one hard exclusion. The platform list is slightly compressed but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive, idempotent toggle with no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers effect, reversibility, scope and one key constraint. The remaining gap is how the identifier parameters relate to each other (e.g. whether comment_id is scoped to post_id), which neither schema nor description resolves.

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 only 20% (just workspace_id), but the description does supply the meaning of the one truly ambiguous parameter, hidden, including its true/false direction. The identifier parameters post_id, channel_id and comment_id are left entirely to the schema, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource and explicitly covers both directions of the toggle (hidden=true hides, hidden=false restores), plus the platform scope. An agent can distinguish this from delete_comment or reply_to_comment purely from the description.

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?

Gives a clear operating condition: 'act on your human's request', which tells the agent this is a human-initiated moderation action rather than something to do autonomously. It also names the supported platforms and the own-comment exclusion, but never points to a sibling alternative (e.g. delete_comment) for permanent removal.

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