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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive); the description goes well beyond that with a premium/ownership precondition, the exact reader-facing consequences of hiding (follow updates, fill in, LivePage promotion disappear while the WeChat button and data-space subscribe/form buttons keep working), and the fact that page-level changes take effect immediately without a new version. The only thin spot is that it doesn't say what a successful response contains beyond the capsule-less case, but the behavioral disclosure is otherwise unusually rich.

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 premium prerequisite before anything else, then uses short bullets each carrying a distinct fact (scope, precedence, side effects, error behavior, ignored keys). It is dense but nearly every clause earns its place; the only redundancy is restating hide/show already given in the schema enum.

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 settings mutation with no output schema, it covers the prerequisites, the scope selector, the precedence model, the visible consequences, the error path, and even the return behavior when no capsule argument is supplied. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to explain the outcome.

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 a 3 is the baseline, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the full precedence chain (page setting > version manifest chrome.default:"hidden" > workspace default > shown), that capsule:null on a page clears it to follow the workspace, and that unrelated keys (follow, position, style, colour, brand) are silently ignored rather than erroring. It does not mention reader_subscribe at all, which the schema covers adequately but leaves the description silent on one of three params.

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 and resource — remove/show the bottom-right reader capsule and its panel — and names the exact enum values (capsule:"hide" / "show") that trigger each behavior. It also distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by pointing at set_visibility for view-control, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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 explicit routing rules: omit proposal_id for the workspace default (owner only), pass it for a single page, and use set_visibility instead when the goal is controlling who can view. It also states the failure condition (free account + hide → pro_required, nothing changes) so the agent knows when the call is not applicable.

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