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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds real value by stating login is required, that the hiding is organization-scoped (not global), and that converted pairs are ineligible. It does not describe the response or any recovery path, but the mutation's blast radius is well disclosed.

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?

Very compact, front-loaded with the login prerequisite and the scoping constraint before the workflow. The bracketed tag style is dense but every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 no-output-schema mutation, the description covers prerequisites (login), scope (organization-only), eligibility (non-converted pairs only), and the safe preview-then-commit sequence. Only return/error behavior is unspecified, which is minor here.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by framing 'preview' as a confirmation gate in the workflow (verify names → confirm → set false). It adds process meaning to the parameter rather than repeating its schema text.

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+resource ('hide this pair' within an organization) and scopes it explicitly ('only in this organization'). It is distinguishable from dismiss_organization_claim and dismiss_organization_proposal, though it does not name those siblings directly.

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 a clear exclusion ('pairs already converted to activity cannot be hidden') and lays out the two-step flow: default preview to verify names, then explicit preview=false to execute. It lacks a direct pointer to alternative tools for the converted-pair case, but the operational guidance is strong.

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