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

With annotations present, the description still adds substantial lifecycle detail beyond them: a 90-day suppression window, restart-on-repeat semantics, the auto-resurface condition, and 'Changes only Mark, never the site' (which corroborates destructiveHint=false). Minor tension: repeat calls reset the clock, which nuances idempotentHint=true, but the disclosure is complete enough that an agent is not misled.

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, zero filler, with the primary action and scope front-loaded before the edge-case behaviors. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what remains: mutation semantics, duration, reversibility, and the source of the path value. Only error handling (e.g., path not present in the list) is unstated.

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% and both schema descriptions are already strong ('exactly as aiCrawler404s returns it', 'Site id from list_sites'). The description's 'one path' clarifies per-call cardinality but adds little beyond the schema; 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 (hides/dismisses) and a precisely scoped resource: one path in get_site_audit's aiCrawler404s and the Site health list, bounded to 90 days. The tool is unique among its siblings, and it explicitly names the related tool (get_site_audit) so an agent can place it in the audit workflow without opening a 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?

Establishes clear operating context: the path comes from aiCrawler404s output, re-dismissing restarts the window, and the entry resurfaces if it still 404s. 'Related: get_site_audit' points the agent back to the source workflow, though there is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative to skip.

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