Hide or unhide a reply

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true annotations, the description adds the HTTP endpoint, the ownership restriction, the required confirm flag, and the OAuth scope. This gives an agent the necessary behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Four short, dense clauses deliver the HTTP method, path, ownership constraint, confirm requirement, scope, and parameter semantics with zero filler. The most important usage restriction is front-loaded.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the endpoint, prerequisites, ownership, scope, and parameter behavior. The only gap is that it does not describe the expected response or common error conditions, but these are not essential for invoking 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3üssig. The description adds value by framing reply_id as the :id in the path and tying it to the 'reply on a conversation you own' rule. It also reinforces the hidden boolean semantics, complementing rather than merely repeating 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?

Title and description both clearly state the action: hide or unhide a reply. The description explicitly maps hidden=true to hide and false to unhide, and the verb-resource pair is unambiguous. None of the siblings overlap with this hide/unhide semantics, so it stands apart.

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 states clear usage context: it only works for replies on a conversation you own, and it requires confirm=true and scope tweet.moderate.write. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the ownership limitation effectively scopes it.

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