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

Annotations already establish idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description usefully confirms idempotency via the no-op sentence, but it does not explain what state is actually changed or why the annotation marks the operation as destructive.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the no-op edge case.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main action and idempotency. However, it leaves brandId semantics and the destructiveHint implication unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains creatorHandle only as 'by handle' and references 'this brand's' catalog, but it never clarifies brandId or whether brand selection is optional.

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 states a specific verb and resource: show a previously hidden creator in this brand's reference catalog. It also distinguishes the operation from its obvious sibling hide_creator and scopes it by handle.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool, including the important no-op condition when the creator was not hidden. It does not explicitly name hide_creator as the inverse operation, but the condition is clear enough for correct invocation.

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