Unhide a comment

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

Beyond the openWorldHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the preview-by-default mode, the need to re-run with apply:true to perform the write, and the IG_WRITE_MODE=apply environment override. This gives the agent essential behavioral information beyond the structured annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core operation, then idempotency, then the execution workflow. Every sentence adds necessary 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?

For a simple three-parameter idempotent operation, the description covers the operation, side-effect control through preview mode, and the exact execution path. No output schema exists, but the preview/apply mechanism is sufficiently described for an agent to invoke the tool 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default preview behavior and introducing IG_WRITE_MODE=apply as an alternative to the apply parameter, which is not present in 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Unhide a previously hidden comment' with the API endpoint POST /{comment-id}?hide=false. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like instagram_hide_comment by stating the inverse operation directly.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to unhide a previously hidden comment, and it explains the idempotent behavior when the comment is already visible. It provides a preview/apply workflow, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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