Hide an account from your timelines without them knowing

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: 'Private and reversible' and the fact that the muted account can still interact. This goes beyond the structured fields and informs the agent about side effects (or lack thereof). It doesn't mention edge cases like repeated muting or effects on notifications, but given the annotations cover safety, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The core purpose ('hide an account from your timelines') is front-loaded, followed by a compact, high-value clarification about privacy and the block contrast. Every word 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 simple mutation tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what it does, its reversibility, and how it differs from a block. Minor gaps include what happens if the account is already muted or if the duration expires, but those are not critical for correct invocation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide and call it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (acct, account, duration) with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters or their relationships, so the baseline of 3 for high coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('hide'), a resource ('an account'), and the effect ('from your timelines') with the crucial nuance that it's private and reversible. It explicitly contrasts with a block, distinguishing it from sibling tools like block_account, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 contrasts with a block ('unlike a block, they can still see and reply to you'), which clearly implies when to choose mute over block. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., 'if you want to prevent them from seeing your posts, use block'), nor does it mention alternatives like unmute. The contrast is strong enough to infer usage, but lacks explicit exclusion.

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