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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that hiding is never refused, that affected live agents are returned, that answers/history persist, and that a module template reinstall keeps the field hidden. This is exactly the 'what gets destroyed / what stays' context a mutation tool needs, and the destructiveHint=true annotation is reconciled by the explicit statement that data is retained.

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 dense sentences, each contributing new information (scope, non-destructiveness, return value/refusal semantics, persistence). The scope constraint is front-loaded and there is 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 compensates by explaining the return (the agents whose live version still reads the field) and the persistence/restore semantics. Nothing needed to call this correctly and interpret it is 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% with only two UUID parameters, so the schema already carries full parameter meaning and the description adds none. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no syntax or format detail is added beyond what the schema provides.

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) on a specific resource (a Policy/config field), and scopes the effect precisely: Policy screen, interviews, and every agent's context. This cleanly separates it from siblings like removeConfigSection (structural removal) and restoreConfigField (the inverse).

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 clarifies that this is the non-destructive option ('Nothing is deleted... the restore operation shows it again'), which implicitly tells the agent to prefer it over delete when the change may need reversing, and it names the restore sibling. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when Y' rule, so it isn't fully routable on guidance alone.

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