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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description usefully narrows the blast radius by stating that other social accounts stay unchanged, which is real context an agent cannot get from the annotations alone. It stops short of saying that hidden_metrics replaces the prior hidden list wholesale, which would fully explain the destructive behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences; the primary action and target come first, then the scoping guarantee. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

All three required parameters are described, an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the mutation's scope is disclosed. Only the replace-vs-merge semantics of hidden_metrics is left implicit (inferred from 'an empty list shows all'), a minor residual gap.

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%, with each parameter documented including that an empty list shows all metrics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (set) and resource (hidden social metrics) with an explicit scope limit: one social account already attached to an owned media kit. The second sentence clarifies that other accounts are untouched, which pins down the exact granularity and separates it from sibling bulk/settings tools.

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?

The prerequisite is stated clearly (the account must already be attached to an owned media kit), which tells the agent when this tool applies versus social_add or media_kit_upsert_item. It does not name an explicit alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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