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

With only idempotentHint provided, the description carries most of the burden well: it discloses the login requirement, that the effect is scoped to this organization only (not global), the hard precondition about converted pairs, and the two-phase preview/execute behavior. It does not say whether the dismissal can be undone or what the resulting state looks like, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two compact bracketed sentences: login/precondition first, then the combo workflow. Nothing is padded, though the telegraphic phrasing ('缺省preview核对人名') is terse enough that an agent must parse compressed syntax.

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 low-complexity, 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers auth, scope, precondition, and the safe preview-then-commit sequence. The remaining gap is post-action state and reversibility, which an agent might want but is not strictly required to invoke it.

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 pairId's 'userId:userId, not a proposal id' format and preview's default/execute semantics are already fully documented. The description only echoes the preview workflow ('缺省preview核对人名→...preview=false修改') and adds no new parameter nuance, making baseline 3 correct.

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?

Description states the specific action (hide this pair) and its scope (only within this organization), which separates it from sibling read tools like get_organization_match_pair and list_organization_match_pairs. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the scope constraint gives an agent enough to distinguish it.

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?

States an explicit precondition for non-use ('已转活动不可隐藏' – already-converted pairs cannot be hidden) and prescribes the workflow order: default preview to verify names, then preview=false to commit. It lacks guidance on alternatives (e.g., introduce_organization_match_pair for the opposite intent), so it stops just 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.