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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: the operation is reversible (hide/restore), history is retained, and the return is only an acknowledgment. This usefully tempers the destructive flag by clarifying that nothing is permanently removed.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and its scope come first, followed by a short clause on reversibility and response. Every sentence carries information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly notes that only an acknowledgment is returned, and it covers reversibility and authority. What's missing is any routing guidance versus sibling moderation tools, which an agent would still need to reason about.

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%, so id, hidden, and op_key are all fully documented in the schema itself (including the 'true hides; false restores' mapping and the retry semantics of op_key). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific reversible action ('hide or restore') on a specific resource ('content you wrote... or content in a space you own'), which is far clearer than the bare title 'Moderate'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling actions like block, mute, or report, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It states the authority preconditions for use ('even after leaving its space, or content in a space you own'), which is useful eligibility context. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as block, mute, or report, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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