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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value by disclosing platform-dependent behavior: yt maps hide to moderation states and yt_status overrides the boolean. This is meaningful context beyond the structured hints.

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 and front-loaded, using compact notation rather than prose. Every clause carries parameter or behavioral information with minimal waste, though the bracket/pipe notation is a little terse for readability.

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 6-param mutation/moderation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral and parameter semantics needed to invoke it correctly. It omits return/response behavior and permission requirements, but the essentials are present.

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 0%, so the description must carry param meaning, and it does well: platform values (ig|fb|yt), the post_id mapping (ig_post_id/fb_post_id, yt_video_id, or post_uuid), and yt_status enum values are all explained. Only comment_id goes unmentioned.

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 ('Hide (or with hide=false unhide) a comment') and distinguishes itself from siblings like like_comment and reply_comment by its moderation purpose. The platform notation and hide/unhide duality make the operation unambiguous.

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?

Clearly indicates the tool's role as comment moderation, including the yt-specific hide->heldForReview/unhide->published model. It does not, however, explicitly name sibling alternatives such as reply_comment or like_comment to route the agent.

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