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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context: on YouTube, hiding is a review hold visible only to the channel, not a deletion. That is useful but thin — it says nothing about permission requirements, what happens if neither flag is supplied, or whether TikTok likes are reversible.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste, with the primary operation front-loaded and the platform caveats following in order of importance. Nothing restates the title or the schema.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers platform quirks and one key parameter prerequisite but omits the flag-resolution logic, permission expectations, and platform support boundaries (e.g., whether Instagram/Facebook support likes or hides at all).

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate, and it does clarify exactly one gap: postId is required for TikTok hides. It leaves liked/hidden semantics ambiguous (what does an omitted or false flag do? can both be set at once?) and never explains the platform enum's behavioral differences.

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?

"Hide or unhide a comment, or (TikTok only) like or unlike it" gives a concrete verb pair and resource, and the platform qualifier scopes it precisely enough to separate it from delete_comment and reply_to_comment. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 implicitly covers when to use the tool (hide/like operations only) and states a concrete prerequisite — TikTok needs postId to hide. However, it never names the alternative tools (delete_comment, reply_to_comment) or states when not to use this one, leaving routing to inference.

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