x_api_hide_posts_reply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states 'Risk: mutating, high-risk' and 'Safety warnings: This mutates X state. Validate scope, payload, and authorizationKey before use.' It also details required permissions (OAuth scopes), environment-selection behavior, common failure conditions (auth failures, rate limits), and the expected response shape, providing comprehensive transparency beyond the bare mutation hint.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Use when, Risk, Required permissions, etc.) and includes an example, making it easy to parse. It is somewhat verbose but each section adds value, with only minor redundancy between 'Risk: mutating' and 'Safety warnings: This mutates X state.' Overall, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the purpose, usage conditions, permissions, environment selection, parameter formats, expected response shape, common failures, recommended companion tools, safety warnings, and an example. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool effectively.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains tweet_id as 'path, unknown, required' and notes that body is 'used for the documented request payload.' It also describes the environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey, and mentions authorizationKey in safety warnings. However, preferredAuthType is not explicitly explained, and some parameters like authorizationKey are not given a full semantic description, but the provided information is substantial.

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 'Hide reply.' which clearly identifies the action on a resource, and the surrounding context (e.g., expected response shape, example) reinforces this purpose. However, it is terse and does not elaborate on the scope (e.g., hiding a reply on a specific post) or distinguish from any potential sibling tools beyond the name. It is clear but not maximally specific.

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 explicitly provides 'Use when: Hide reply.' and 'Do not use when: a more specific auth/configuration tool is required before the API call or you are only exploring; prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first.' It also lists 'Recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools' including x_connection_info and x_auth_upsert_principal_credentials, giving clear guidance on when and when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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