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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It does add the behavioral effect on the feed, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, any rate limits, or authentication requirements, though these are not critical for this simple undo operation. Overall it adds some context beyond annotations but not rich detail.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. It efficiently communicates the action and outcome without wasted words.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool, the presence of an output schema, and full parameter coverage, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the operation. It does not explain edge cases or error scenarios, but these are not essential for a basic undo action. The annotations cover safety aspects, so nothing critical 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?

The input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (id and scope). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or syntax beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (un-hide) and the effect (appear in for-you feed again), which distinguishes it from the inverse colony_not_interested. It is not a tautology and gives a specific verb and outcome, though it uses 'something' without naming the resource types (post/author/colony) which are only clarified in the 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?

The description implies this tool reverses a prior 'not interested' action, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The sibling colony_not_interested is the obvious inverse, but no direct comparison is given. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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