stage_hide_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Hide' implies a mutation that likely changes the visibility state of a message, but the description doesn't specify if this is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens if no message is displayed, or if it affects other system states. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action ('hide') and target ('current stage message'). It's efficiently sized for a zero-parameter tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, side effects, or usage context. Given the complexity (simple action) and structured data gaps, it provides a basic understanding but falls short of being fully informative.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, as there are none to explain, which aligns well with the schema's completeness.

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 clearly states the action ('hide') and the target ('the current stage message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'stage_show_message' or other message-related tools like 'messages_clear' or 'messages_delete', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether a message must be currently displayed), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'stage_show_message' or 'messages_clear', leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.

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