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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the required signer role, the mandatory-reason rule, and that the action is written to the audit log — meaningful consequences for a mutation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the effect (hide, not resolve) and then the actor and audit constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation with strong annotations and a fully documented schema, the essential context is present: who may act, what the action does and doesn't do, and that it is audited. It stops short of stating reversibility (a fleet__undo exists) or whether a dismissed advisory still counts toward risk scoring.

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%; both advisory_id (UUID) and reason (non-empty rationale) are fully documented in the schema, including the anti-abuse rationale. The description only restates that a reason is required, adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 an advisory") plus the key semantic distinction: the advisory is hidden, not resolved. That implicitly separates it from fleet__resolve_advisory and fleet__acknowledge_advisory without naming either sibling.

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?

The phrase "without resolving it" hints at the choice against resolve_advisory, and the permission note (owner, admin or member) sets a precondition. But it never explicitly says when to dismiss versus resolve or acknowledge, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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