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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the template is not deleted, it stays in the templates folder, hidden items are still returned by get_workspace_templates with include_hidden: true, and the calling user needs the template permission in the template's workspace. That is the kind of side-effect and auth information the hints alone cannot give.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler; the action and toggle are front-loaded, followed by the non-destructive guarantee, the retrieval consequence, and the permission requirement. Dense but still readable.

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 two-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what is not destroyed, how to find hidden items afterwards, and the required permission. It leaves unstated what happens when the template is already in the requested state or what an error response looks like, which is the only remaining gap.

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 quiz_id and hidden are already documented, including the boolean polarity. The description reinforces the meaning by tying the boolean to the visible 'Hide' toggle and telling the agent where the quiz_id comes from, but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

Names a concrete verb-plus-resource pair (hide/show an account template in the template gallery) and makes the bidirectional nature explicit through the 'Hide' toggle framing. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling delete_quiz, archive_quiz, make_quiz_template and search_quiz_templates tools.

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?

It explains the operational context (the 'Hide' toggle in the account's templates section) and routes the agent to get_workspace_templates with include_hidden: true for discovering hidden items. It also implicitly rules out deletion as the goal. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative to use when the intent really is removal.

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