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

Adds substantial value beyond annotations: it explains that data and provenance are retained, that the action is reversible via restore_accounting_run, that it is not permanent erasure, and that no external service is contacted. This explains why destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true apply rather than merely restating them.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence carries distinct semantics (reversibility, idempotency, isolation). The final two sentences partially echo the idempotentHint and openWorldHint annotations, which is mild redundancy but still confirms behavior in prose.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral facts an agent needs: scope of effect, reversibility, idempotency, and lack of external calls. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 50%: expected_revision carries its own 'refuses a stale visibility change' description in the schema, while run_id is self-evident (uuid of the run). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 one owned Accounting run') and immediately reframes delete semantics as a soft hide from lists and reads, distinguishing it from a permanent-erasure tool. An agent can identify what it does and how it differs from the sibling restore_accounting_run without opening the schema.

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?

Clarifies the soft-delete semantics and explicitly names restore_accounting_run as the reversal, which routes the agent to the correct sibling when undoing. It stops short of stating explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites, so it is clear context rather than full conditional guidance.

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