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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the comment is not deleted, that the commenter and friends still see it on Facebook, the resulting moderation.hidden_by value ('user' vs 'platform'), that hidden comments receive no reply, and specific failure modes (422 comment_already_hidden, 422 platform_hide_failed with transient retry guidance, and 500-then-already_hidden meaning the write succeeded). This is exactly the behavioral context annotations can't carry.

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?

Front-loads the core action and platform scope before the behavioral and error detail, and every sentence carries information. The opening line restating the title is mildly redundant, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the side effects, state transitions, error taxonomy, and retry semantics an agent needs. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so agent_id and comment_id are fully documented in the schema; the description adds no further parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 ('Hide a comment') and pins the target platforms ('Facebook or Instagram') plus the analogy to teammate behavior on the Comments page. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like unhide_comment purely from the text.

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?

The description conveys the semantic effect (leaves public view but isn't deleted), which implies reversal via unhide_comment, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus restoring visibility or taking other moderation actions. Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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