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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'nothing is deleted' largely restates structured data, though it usefully frames the operation as hiding rather than removal. It does not cover whether the state is reversible how quickly, what happens on repeat calls, or any authorization requirement.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing 'again' is slightly ambiguous and could confuse an agent about idempotency, which keeps it from a 5.

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 one-parameter state-change tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits the inverse operation, repeat-call behavior, and effect on already-scheduled lessons/bookings for the hidden branch.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The branch's id.'), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no extra meaning about where to obtain the id (e.g., list_branches) or what happens with an unknown id.

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 (hide a branch's timetable from the public page) and implicitly separates itself from destructive siblings like remove_branch via 'nothing is deleted'. The sibling pair make_branch_live / make_branches_live is not named, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose (hide a branch from the public page). It does not say when to choose this over make_branch_live or take_all_branches_offline, nor whether calling it on an already-hidden branch is safe; the adverb 'again' hints at a repeat toggle but is left unexplained.

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