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

Annotations declare the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the hide is reversible and the comment is not deleted. It also scopes supported platforms (Instagram, Facebook, Threads), which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the primary action and its reversibility guarantee front-loaded before the platform list and ID sourcing.

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 non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, reversibility, platform support, and parameter sourcing. It doesn't mention required permissions or what the call returns, which would round it out.

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 80% (hide flag, accountId, commentId documented in-schema), so the baseline is low-3, but the description adds real provenance value by naming the two sibling tools that supply commentId/accountId/platform.

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 (hide/unhide) on a specific resource (comment), gives the motivation (spam, trolls, off-topic), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the destructive sibling delete_comment by noting the comment 'isn't deleted'.

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?

Names the triggering scenarios (spam, trolls, off-topic) and tells the agent where the required identifiers come from (list_recent_comments or get_post_comments). It stops short of an explicit 'use delete_comment instead when...' exclusion, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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