threads_unhide_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core state change (hidden -> unhidden), but omits side effects, prerequisites (e.g., reply must currently be hidden), permission requirements, or error behavior. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple state-transition 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 two effective sentences plus a one-line argument spec. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter state-change tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter adequately. It could add a pointer to threads_hide_reply as the counterpart, but the low complexity means this is a minor gap rather than a serious deficiency.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description compensates by explicitly defining 'reply_id: The ID of the reply to unhide.' This is the only meaningful parameter, so semantics are clear. The mention of 'ctx' adds framework context 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 opens with 'Unhide a previously hidden reply,' a specific verb ('unhide') and resource ('reply'), and unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling 'threads_hide_reply' as its inverse. The purpose is immediately clear and not a tautology.

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?

No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative names are provided. The intended use is implied by the verb 'unhide' and the phrase 'previously hidden,' but the description does not state when to choose this over other reply tools or mention its hide counterpart.

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