Hide or Unhide a Facebook Comment

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

It goes beyond the boolean annotations by explaining the real-world effect: hidden comments are visible only to the author and their friends. It also discloses the required pages_manage_engagement permission and reinforces the non-destructive nature of the operation, which is consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true.

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 compact and well organized: a purpose sentence, a behavioral consequence, a moderation context sentence, a clean Args block, and a permission note. Every line earns its place and the most important operational information appears before the parameter list.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, post-condition visibility, parameter semantics, permission requirements, and relationship to deletion. No critical operational information 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?

The schema leaves comment_id undocumented, but the description fills that gap and restates the meanings of page_id and is_hidden. Because 67% of parameters already have schema descriptions, the description's added value is mainly in defining comment_id and framing page_id for authentication, which is enough to support correct invocation.

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 immediately states the specific action ('Hides or unhides a comment on a Facebook Page post') with a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from deletion by calling itself 'a non-destructive alternative to deletion,' which separates it from sibling tools like meta_delete_comment and meta_reply_post_comment.

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 ('useful for moderation') and explicitly positions the tool as a non-destructive alternative to deletion, which helps an agent decide when to choose it over deleting a comment. It does not list all possible alternatives or exclusions, but the moderation use case plus the permission requirement provides solid guidance.

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