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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the effect spans three networks, the state is reversible through hidden=false, and the change is a visibility flag rather than a destructive remove. It does not mention permission or rate-limit behavior, which would be the remaining gap for an openWorldHint tool.

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 compact sentence-chain that front-loads the action and scope, then the toggle, then the non-destruction caveat, then the usage gate. Every clause carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

Two parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety: the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly, including platform scope, source list, toggle semantics and a usage restriction. Only the response/permission side is unstated, which is minor given no output schema exists.

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 only 50%: comment_ref is documented, but hidden carries only type and default. The description compensates precisely by explaining that hidden=false restores the comment, which is the one semantic the schema leaves implicit. It adds no format detail for comment_ref because the schema already does that.

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 (oculta un comentario) plus its scope: comments surfaced by list_comments, on Facebook/Instagram/TikTok, mirroring the Bandeja. It also pre-empts the most likely confusion by saying 'No lo borra', distinguishing the visibility toggle from deletion without the agent having to inspect a schema.

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 an explicit usage gate ('Úsala solo cuando el usuario lo pidió') and documents the inverse operation via hidden=false, which tells the agent when this tool is also the right call to restore visibility. It stops short of routing against neighbors that also act on comments (resolve_comment, pin_comment, like_comment), but the when/when-not framing is clear.

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