threads_hide_reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action without mentioning reversibility, permissions, side effects, or what happens to the reply after hiding. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by args. However, it includes 'ctx: FastMCP request context' which is not part of the input schema and may confuse agents. Overall, it is appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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?

Despite the tool being simple, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency. It does not reference sibling tools like 'threads_unhide_reply' or explain the effect of hiding (e.g., visibility to others, reversibility). With output schema present, return values are not needed, but the missing context still makes the description incomplete for an agent to correctly select and use the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter. It provides a minimal explanation ('The ID of the reply to hide') that is essentially a restatement of the parameter name. It does not specify format, origin, or constraints, adding little value beyond 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+resource construction, 'Hide a reply to your post,' which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'threads_unhide_reply' (the reverse action). The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 basic context ('to your post') that implies the tool applies to replies on your own posts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or the existence of 'threads_unhide_reply' for reversing the action. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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