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

Goes well past destructiveHint=true by spelling out the exact scope of the effect: the issue or page becomes closed to everyone outside its own project from the next request, and 'Nothing is deleted but the row.' It also states authorization (project owner or public-project administrator) and the side effect of writing to both projects' journals.

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-loads the effect and the id source, then permissions and side effects. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the final clause ('may; written to both projects' journals') is compressed to the point of being hard to parse.

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-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what does not change, permission requirements, and journal side effects. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the id's origin and a projectKey example. The description only restates the id's provenance and adds 'public project' framing, which is marginal beyond the schema.

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 ('Stop showing one row of a public project's showcase') and names the sibling it consumes ('its id from list_showcase'), so an agent can separate it from add_to_showcase/list_showcase without reading 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?

It gives clear context for use (un-showcasing one existing row) and the prerequisite source of the identifier from list_showcase. It doesn't explicitly name the inverse tool or exclusion conditions, but the intent is unambiguous.

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