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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the description's restatement of idempotency is redundant. However, it adds real value by clarifying what 'destructive' does NOT mean here - saved references from that creator survive - which prevents an agent from over-estimating the blast radius. No permissions or auth requirements are described.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core action and its scope front-loaded before the caveats. Every sentence adds a distinct fact.

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, idempotency, and a key non-effect. The main omission is how brandId is supplied or defaulted, which an 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It documents the creatorHandle format ('with or without @'), which the schema does not, but says nothing about brandId beyond the vague phrase 'this brand's'. It compensates for one of two parameters, leaving a documented 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 (hide) and resource (creator) scoped to 'this brand's reference catalog searches', which distinguishes it from sibling catalog tools like list_catalog_creators and search_creators. The implicit pairing with unhide_creator is clear from the verb alone.

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?

Explains the operative context (affects catalog searches only) and the idempotent case ('already-hidden creators are left as is'), plus an explicit exclusion ('does not delete saved references'). It stops short of naming unhide_creator as the inverse operation, so the when-not guidance is only partial.

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