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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that nothing is deleted, the answer and history are retained, restore re-shows the field, the tool returns agents whose live version still reads it, hiding is never refused because of those agents, and a module template reinstall preserves the hidden state. This is exactly the side-effect and lifecycle context an agent needs for a mutation tool.

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 side-effect guarantee ('Nothing is deleted') is front-loaded, followed by lifecycle and return-value detail. Every sentence carries information; it runs slightly long but no sentence is 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return information ('Returns the agents whose live version still reads the field') and the full behavioral contract, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 100%, so automation_id and field_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (hide) and resource (a Policy question / config field), and clarifies it is not a deletion ('Nothing is deleted'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the delete/update siblings by emphasizing reversibility via restore, giving the agent a precise mental model.

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?

Clearly frames this as the reversible-invisibility operation, and points to the restore path ('the restore operation shows it again'), which routes the agent toward restoreConfigField. However, it never names alternatives explicitly (e.g., delete vs hide, when not to use this) so the comparison is implied rather than spelled out.

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