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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: nothing is deleted, the review is excluded from the public page and its average, and the customer is not notified — the last point matters for an agent that might otherwise assume a notification is sent.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the primary action is front-loaded and the non-obvious consequence (no deletion, no customer notice) follows immediately.

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-required-param toggle with no output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers effect, scope, and reversibility adequately. Minor gaps remain around permission requirements and behavior when the review id does not exist.

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 id, hidden, workspaceId, and idempotencyKey are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states (e.g. hidden=true hides, false restores), 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?

States a specific reversible action (hide/show) on a specific resource (appointment review) and names the exact scope of the effect: the public booking page and its average. An agent can immediately distinguish this from reply_booking_review or list_booking_reviews without opening a 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?

Usage is implied (moderate visibility of a review on the public page) but the description never says when to reach for this instead of a sibling such as reply_booking_review, nor any prerequisites. The reversibility note helps the decision but is not framed as guidance.

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