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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint, so the description carries the rest and does: it discloses the broadcast takedown, pin removal, replay-interaction removal, that the action cannot be undone or restored, and that on-site viewers' exposure is permanent. It also explains the idempotent repeat behavior ('重复保持隐藏') rather than contradicting the annotation.

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?

Dense but every clause carries information, and the credential/verification precondition is front-loaded before the side effects and the retry prohibition. It is a single semicolon-chained block, so scanning is slightly harder than a short structured layout would be.

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 destructive, non-reversible mutation with no output schema and no destructiveHint annotation, the description still covers permissions, irreversible effects, blast radius, idempotency and the recovery/verification path – nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real workflow semantics: messageId and author must be cross-checked against the host console or get_organizer_live before hiding, and activityRef is framed as the hard boundary confining the effect to one session.

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 and resource – hide (隐藏) a live message (本场消息) – and pins the scope to this session (不影响账号或其他场), which cleanly separates it from siblings like pin_live_message, recall_my_message and ban_live_user.

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 explicit preconditions (login / be the session host; verify author, messageId and full text at the host console and confirm), an explicit prohibition (no auto-retry, use get_organizer_live to verify unknown outcomes) and states there is no unhide path, so the agent knows when this is and is not the right call.

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