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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds that the restored field keeps 'the answer it had', which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it does not discuss permissions, reversibility, or side effects.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter mutation tool.

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?

Given the simple schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations that cover the mutation profile, the description provides the essential purpose and one key behavioral detail (retaining the prior answer). It is nearly complete for this tool's complexity, though it could clarify the relationship to hideConfigField.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents automation_id and field_id with their UUID formats. The description adds no additional meaning about how to supply or interpret these parameters.

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?

The description states a specific action (show a hidden Policy question again) on a specific resource, which corresponds to restoring a config field. It is clear enough to distinguish from hideConfigField by the word 'again', but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'a hidden Policy question', indicating the tool applies only when a field is currently hidden. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as hideConfigField or updateConfigField.

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