Hide a comment

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by explaining the idempotency semantics and — critically — the non-obvious edge case that a media owner's own comment on their own media stays visible while the API still returns success. That is a real behavioral gotcha no annotation or schema conveys.

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-loaded with verb+resource and the endpoint, then ordered by importance: reversibility, idempotency, edge case, invocation workflow. It is dense and the parenthetical endpoint template is slightly noisy, but very little of it is filler.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the surprising edge case, and the preview gate. It does not say what the preview result actually contains, which is the one remaining gap for an agent deciding how to interpret a dry run.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the preview-by-default workflow and the IG_WRITE_MODE=apply environment alternative, which is not expressible in the apply parameter's own description.

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 ('Hide a comment'), even pinning the underlying endpoint, which makes it unmistakably distinct from instagram_delete_comment, instagram_unhide_comment, and instagram_get_comment. The sibling set is large and this tool's scope is immediately legible without opening any 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?

Explicitly positions the tool as 'reversible moderation, preferred over delete', which names the alternative (instagram_delete_comment) and the condition that selects this one. The preview/apply gate is also stated up front so the agent knows a dry-run happens unless it opts in.

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