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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and non-readOnly, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description goes further by disclosing the audit trail, dry-run-by-default behavior, the persistence rule that a sync-hidden entry 'will not hide it again', and the reassurance that hide leaves the entry public and keep changes nothing public. It does not describe rate limits or what the dry-run output contains, but the added behavioral context is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by tight, parallel one-line definitions per decision value, plus a compact closing note on auditing and dry run. Length is justified by four distinct modes; no filler or repetition of schema content.

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, four-mode mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers the decision semantics, visibility consequences, undo pairings (hide/allow, keep/undecide) and the dry-run default. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and return values need not be explained given the output schema.

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 67% and the enum 'decision' has no description in the schema at all; the description fully compensates by defining all four values and their side effects. The 'entry' and 'dry_run' formats are covered in the schema, so the description adds the missing half rather than duplicating.

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 ('Decide an entry's place in Trending') and enumerates the four distinct operations (hide/allow/keep/undecide) with their exact semantics. This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling 'trending' and from entry-editing tools. An agent can pick this tool over siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Each enum value is paired with the situation that selects it (hide = keep out of Trending row and search trending list; allow = undo a sync hide; keep = accept a suggestion without hiding; undecide = undo a keep and make it suggestible again), which is effectively when-to-use guidance. It gives clear context but never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case (e.g. 'to just view Trending, use trending').

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