Unhide a comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the non-obvious dry-run-by-default safety model and the env-var override, which annotations cannot convey. It also restates idempotency in behavioral terms ('unhiding a visible comment leaves it visible'), reinforcing rather than contradicting the annotation.

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 tight sentences: what it does, its idempotent behavior, and how to actually commit the change. The core action is front-loaded and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers action, idempotency, the preview/apply workflow, and the endpoint. It omits what a successful call returns, permission/scope requirements, and error behavior on an invalid or already-deleted comment id, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents apply, account, and commentId; baseline would be 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema by documenting the IG_WRITE_MODE=apply environment-variable alternative to the apply flag, plus the hide=false path semantics.

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 ('Unhide a previously hidden comment') and even names the underlying endpoint (POST /{comment-id}?hide=false). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling instagram_hide_comment and instagram_delete_comment without opening the 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?

Gives clear operational context: preview by default, re-run with apply:true (or IG_WRITE_MODE=apply) to commit, and notes idempotent behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as hide_comment or delete_comment or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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