Hide locked ChatGPT chats on the phone too

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

Annotations only cover idempotency and non-destructiveness; the description adds real behavioral context: chats are archived in the ChatGPT account, remain visible under Archived chats, unarchive when the lock is removed in the browser, and the feature is unavailable for Claude/Gemini. The extension prerequisite is also disclosed. It stops short of stating what the call returns or any failure modes.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by the unarchive rule, platform limitation, and prerequisite. Every sentence carries information; the density is high but not padded.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema toggle, the definition covers effect, side effects, platform limits, and the extension requirement, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Only a note on return/reporting behavior is missing.

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 50%: 'on' has no description, while 'apply_to_locked' is documented in the schema itself. The description's 'on or off' and 'locked chats are also archived' clarifies the on/apply behavior somewhat, but adds no syntax or default semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 fits.

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 concrete verb and setting (turns AppLock's 'Hide on your phone too' on/off) plus the concrete effect: ChatGPT chats get archived and vanish from the chat list. It is specific about scope (ChatGPT only, Claude/Gemini have no archive) but never contrasts itself with close siblings like hide_session or hide_browser_chat.

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 through the behavioral explanation (turn on to archive locked chats, lock removal unarchives), and the prerequisite 'Needs the AppLock browser extension' is stated. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance against the many hide_*/lock_* siblings, leaving routing to inference.

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