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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it declares the change is a display preference only, that draft results keep coming back as plain text, that hidden:false reverses it, and that workspace scope requires an owner/admin role. The annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description supplies the missing side-effect scope, reversibility, and authorization requirements.

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, then reversal, then scope/permission caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the scope/permission material is split across two sentences and could be tightened slightly.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations are supplemented rather than repeated. For a 4-parameter preference toggle, action, reversal path, scope semantics, and role requirements are all covered.

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 schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description adds genuine semantics on top: hidden:false re-enables the card and works at either scope even while the card is hidden. It does not add anything about inbox vs inbox_id resolution beyond the schema.

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/show) on a specific resource (the in-chat draft editor card), plus the two scopes it can act on. An agent can immediately distinguish it from draft_editor_save or draft_list, which manipulate content rather than display state.

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?

Frames use with 'when the user asks for that' and clarifies that drafts, sending and every other tool are unaffected, implicitly steering the agent away from using this for content changes. It does not name a sibling tool as the alternative for any adjacent task, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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