Hide a ribbon control

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

No annotations, so the description must carry safety and side-effect information. It discloses that the removal occurs in the local working copy, that it removes the node others may target, and that APPLICATION support is experimental (in schema). It does not mention reversibility, publish requirement, or permissions, leaving some ambiguity for a destructive action.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism. The caveat about display rules earns its place, with no redundant 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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers what, how, where (local working copy), and source of input. It omits explicit next steps like publish or discard, but the sibling ribbon_publish/ribbon_discard and 'local working copy' phrasing partially cover that context.

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%; every parameter (entity, controlId, environment) has a description. The description adds the useful pointer that controlId comes from ribbon_get_structure, but otherwise relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Remove' with resource 'control from the ribbon' and mechanism 'HideCustomAction'. It distinguishes from siblings by targeting usually out-of-the-box controls and sourcing ids from ribbon_get_structure.

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 context: hide via HideCustomAction; explicitly cautions that for commands you own, an always-false display rule is often preferable, creating an exclusion. It stops short of naming sibling tools like ribbon_customize_command, but the guidance is actionable.

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