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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: a preview-then-confirm flow, the need for owner approval, requestId reuse for outcome recovery, and the 'claim live only when status is active' lifecycle rule. It still doesn't disclose what 'hiding' actually changes downstream, but the confirm/approval contract is a meaningful addition to destructiveHint=true.

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?

The workflow constraint is front-loaded and the prose is short, but 'Claim live only when status is active' is cryptic jargon, and the trailing 'Fields: soclo://tools/soclo_ads_hide_ad_comment' is an unexplained pointer that doesn't earn its space.

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?

With 10 parameters, a nested payload, destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description should do more: it never explains the budget/currency fields, what 'status active' refers to, or what the success response contains. It covers the confirm contract but is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 60%, and the description only reinforces confirm and requestId, both of which already have schema descriptions. It leaves the puzzling spend-related fields (expectedCurrency, expectedBudgetType, expectedBudgetAmount, adAccountId) completely unexplained, which is a real gap for a hide-comment operation.

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 opening sentence 'Soclo Ads: Hide or unhide an ad comment' states a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like soclo_ads_delete_ad_comment or soclo_ads_reply_to_ad_comment, leaving the agent to infer why it should hide rather than delete.

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?

'Spending/deletion: preview, then owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId' gives conditional workflow guidance that is genuinely useful. But it never says when to prefer this over delete_ad_comment or when the preview step is skippable, so the usage boundary is only implied.

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