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

Adds real substance beyond the annotations: nothing is deleted upstream, later syncs preserve the hidden state (reinforcing idempotentHint=true), and human approval is required. The one thing not disclosed is reversibility — whether the hide can be undone and via which tool — though this is not a contradiction of destructiveHint=true, since a hidden state is still a state change.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the most decision-relevant caveat (nothing is deleted upstream). Zero 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 simple 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, and the approval gate well. Missing only edge behavior (nonexistent audience, what a repeat call returns) and whether the hide is reversible.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters and the "or" phrasing usefully implies at least one identifier must be supplied, which the schema does not state (required: 0). But it gives no format or precedence guidance when both are provided.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Hide") against a specific resource (an audience, identified by `ads_audience_id` or `ads_audience_uuid`) and immediately reframes what the "delete" in the tool name actually does. An agent can distinguish this from delete_ads_campaign or edit_ads_audience without opening another 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?

Gives clear triggering context: this is the panel-side hide operation, not a provider-side deletion, so an agent that wants a real provider delete knows this is the wrong tool. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. edit_ads_audience for reverting the hide), which keeps it short of a 5.

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