Change who can reply

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

Annotations already indicate this is mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that 'existing replies stay unless you hide them,' which clarifies a potentially surprising side effect.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes something: the action, the secondary capability, and the situational use case. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with rich schema descriptions and no output schema, the description plus schema covers the needed invocation context well. It could optionally mention what the call returns or confirm the effect, but nothing essential is missing for calling 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the 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 uses a specific verb ('Change who is allowed to reply') with a clear resource ('one of your existing posts, after it is already published'), and adds a secondary capability (hiding specific replies). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_post or delete_post.

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 clear context: it is for posts that already exist and are published, and it is described as 'the main tool for a post that is going badly.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the timing boundary is reasonably clear.

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