Hide or unhide a Threads reply

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the reversible toggle (hide/unhide) and clarifies the purpose, which is beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations and gives helpful behavioral context about reversibility.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action, includes both states (hide/unhide) and the use case. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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?

With only two parameters, one required, and a simple boolean toggle, the description fully covers the operation: what it does, how to revert, and why. The schema provides replyId guidance (from list_threads_replies), and annotations handle idempotency and destructiveness. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'hide:false' for unhide but that duplicates the schema's parameter explanation ('false to UNHIDE (default true)'). No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided, so no bonus above baseline.

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 states a specific action (hide/unhide) on a specific resource (a reply on a brand's Threads post) and gives the use case (spam/abuse moderation). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like delete_thread (permanent) and moderate_meta_comment (different platform). No ambiguity.

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 implies when to use it (for spam/abuse moderation) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives (e.g., 'use delete_thread for permanent removal'). It does not state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the sibling list. This is adequate but not explicit.

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