pages_hide_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool can both hide and unhide, implying reversibility, but it does not explain the side effects, the meaning of the 'confirm' parameter, or whether confirmation is required for irreversible actions. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action. However, it is overly terse and could have included parameter semantics or usage nuances without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has three parameters but only one is required, and the description does not explain when the optional parameters should be used or what the default behavior is. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full scope of the tool, especially the 'confirm' flag and the toggle behavior.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific information. While 'comment_id' and 'hide' are inferable from context, the 'confirm' parameter is left completely unexplained. The description fails to indicate that the 'hide' boolean toggles between hide/unhide or the role of 'confirm' in the operation.

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?

The description states a clear verb ('hide or unhide') and resource ('a comment from a post'), which accurately reflects the tool's function and distinguishes it from reply/delete operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ig_hide_comment, relying on the 'pages_' prefix for that distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pages_reply_to_comment or ig_hide_comment. It only describes the action without any context about prerequisites, platform-specific constraints, or scenarios that warrant hiding vs deleting.

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