threads_unhide_reply

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the effect (unhiding) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as reversibility, permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., visibility change for others).

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 of 8 words with no filler. It is extremely concise and front-loaded, containing only essential information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what the tool does. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., the reply must be hidden first) or the effect (reply becomes visible again) to be fully self-contained.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'reply_id', with the schema description already being 'Reply ID to unhide'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond that, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (unhide) and resource (a previously hidden reply on a Threads post). It is specific and unambiguous, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'threads_hide_reply', which is the inverse operation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'threads_hide_reply' or potential prerequisites. The description simply states the action without context for appropriate usage.

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