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

Goes well beyond the annotations: states the 30-day duration, that only the caller's member feed changes ('nobody else's feed changes, so it is not confirmed'), that the action is recorded in Settings → Connected agents, the required permission scope (engage:write), and the sign-in prompt when the member has not connected. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation 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?

Front-loaded with the action and duration, then layers constraints, side effects, and auth. Dense and mostly earning its space, though the opening clause restates the title and the granularity point is made twice ('whole KIND' and 'no way to hide one post').

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 single-enum-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, permission prerequisites, and even the response's `label` field, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly. The injection-safety note is a reasonable addition for a tool that surfaces member-generated content.

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% and the enum is self-describing, so baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by framing `type` as a 'kind of card' constrained to the ×-enabled list and noting the human-readable name appears as `label` in the answer. That is genuine added semantics, not repetition.

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 with scope: hiding a whole KIND of feed card from the member's own feed for 30 days, and explicitly delimits what it is not ('the site has no way to hide one post, job or listing'). An agent can distinguish this from per-item hide or block actions without opening 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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (the × on a feed card) and a when-not constraint (only the kinds the feed draws an × on, enumerated in `type`). It does not explicitly name the reversal sibling show_feed_cards_again, but the usage boundary is otherwise well defined.

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