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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely new context by clarifying that the actions are reversible and never hard-delete, and by documenting the two authentication modes (Bearer header or key argument). It does not disclose rate limits or any failure/permission-error behavior beyond the access requirement, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the operation, then access requirements, then reversibility, then auth caveats — each sentence carries distinct information. There is no repetition of the tool name or filler despite covering several distinct concerns.

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 must carry the return-behavior burden, and it partially does by stating the state model (reversible, no hard delete) rather than the actual response shape. Access, auth, and reversibility are all covered, which is sufficient for a 5-parameter mutation tool, though response format is left implicit.

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 already 80% and the action enum exists only implicitly ('hide, restore, lock, or unlock' appears in both schema and description). The description adds meaning for 'key' by explaining credential handling, but the other four parameters receive no added semantics, so 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 verb set and resource (hide/restore a post, lock/unlock its thread) and scopes it to private posts, which clearly separates it from siblings like community_member_role, community_invite_revoke, or create_thread. An agent can identify exactly what this tool changes without opening the 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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite conditions for use — owner or moderator access plus account scope — which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It does not, however, name any alternative tool or describe when to prefer a different moderation path, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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