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

Annotations already indicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the specific behavioral effect on 'public displays,' which is meaningful context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that state the purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. There is no redundant information or padding.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, all documented in the schema, and an output schema available), the description covers the essential usage. It explains the effect on public visibility, and since an output schema exists, return values are not the description's responsibility. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%—both parameters (id and is_hidden) have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds a slight clarification by stating 'show or hide,' which maps to the boolean is_hidden parameter, but this adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the purpose: 'Show or hide a review in public displays.' It uses a specific verb ('show or hide') and identifies the resource ('review' and 'public displays'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like updateReviewLocation or updateReviewSource, as it focuses solely on visibility.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. While the purpose implies that this is for toggling visibility, an agent gets no explicit signal about when it should be chosen over other update tools (e.g., updateReviewDuplicateFlag).

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