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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: likes and hides are reversible while delete is permanent and requires a publish-capable role, hiding/deleting removes the comment from the Inbox, per-channel action support differs (Threads vs Facebook), hidden state returns as hidden: true, broken connections cause refusal, and the feature is plan-gated outside Free.

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 action list and resource, then stacks the behavioral constraints efficiently in dense sentences. The closing "Use this when..." sentence partly restates the opening and drops unlike/unhide, making it the one weakly-earning line.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description still covers the relevant result state (hidden: true). It also anticipates the main failure modes an agent will hit: unsupported action per channel, dead connection, and plan gating.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the action enum by explaining which values each channel actually supports, and clarifies that postId/postPlatformId/commentId come from a published post and list_post_comments respectively. It does not add format details for the numeric ids, which the schema already covers.

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 exact verbs (like, unlike, hide, unhide, delete), the resource (a comment on a published post), and the acting identity (the channel the post was published to). It is immediately distinguishable from reply_to_comment and from list_post_comments, which it explicitly references as the source of ids and action capabilities.

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?

"Use this when the user wants to like, hide or delete a comment on one of their published posts" gives a clear trigger, and the channel-capability note directs the agent to check commentActions from list_post_comments before calling. It does not explicitly route replying to the reply_to_comment sibling, only implying the separation via the plan note.

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