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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds real value on top by spelling out that the hide is permanent, that 'last' also removes its screenshot, and that the user must be told and a real key rotated. It stops short of saying what the call returns or whether hidden steps remain recoverable.

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 action and its permanence are front-loaded, and every clause carries information (trigger, default behavior, user notification, key rotation). It is a dense run-on sentence rather than a structured list, which costs a little readability.

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 destructive, permanent operation with no output schema and 25% schema coverage, the description covers consequences and follow-up well. It still leaves the identity of 'id' and 'key' unexplained and says nothing about the response, which an agent needs to confirm the hide succeeded.

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 only 25% — only 'step' is documented — so the description must compensate. It clarifies the default 'last' behavior (also hides the screenshot) and hints that a 'key' is involved, but leaves the required 'id' and 'key' parameters ambiguous (is 'key' the step's secret content or an auth credential?).

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 of your broadcast's steps'), plus scope ('from everyone') and permanence ('for good'). It is clearly distinct from delete_broadcast (whole broadcast) and broadcast_step (emitting a step), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: use right after showing something that may be a secret or personal information NewTV wouldn't recognize, with concrete examples (unusual key format, keys/settings screenshot). It also prescribes a follow-up ('Tell your user; a real key must be rotated') but does not contrast against alternatives such as deleting the whole broadcast.

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