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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: this operates on the business's own store, nothing is transacted in chat, and the change is a visibility flip back to public.

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?

Three sentences with the actionable instruction front-loaded after the scoping context. The middle sentence about buyers/Stripe is slightly tangential to the immediate action but does establish the store-administration framing efficiently.

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 visibility-toggle with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, source of blockId, and domain context. It is essentially complete, though it never states the expected result (e.g., the block becomes publicly visible).

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 blockId, workspaceId, and idempotencyKey are already fully documented. The description only echoes that blockId comes from list_store_blocks, adding no new syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so 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 ('Put a hidden block back on the public store page'), which pins down exactly which state transition occurs and distinguishes it from add/delete/update siblings. It doesn't explicitly name hide_store_block as the inverse, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 (re-showing a block that was hidden) and it routes the agent to list_store_blocks for the blockId. There is no explicit when-not guidance or contrast with hide_store_block/update_store_block, so the agent must infer the selection condition.

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