create_users_hidden_by_section

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

Annotations already convey that this is non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds the HTTP method/path and the useful instruction to inspect the matching GET or /schema endpoint, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or what happens when duplicate hidden items are added.

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 core action, and clearly organizes endpoint, args, and prerequisite guidance. It has no filler, though the space saved could have been used to convey more semantic detail about the section and body.

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?

The presence of an output schema and annotations reduces the need to explain return values and safety. The description's pointer to the matching GET or /schema endpoint is a practical way to discover body fields, but it still leaves section values undefined and gives the agent little direct information needed for a confident first call.

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 0%, yet the description only restates 'section: Path parameter' and 'body: Request payload' while pointing to GET or /schema for field discovery. It does not explain what section values are valid, what the body object should look like, or provide any concrete examples, so the parameter semantics are under-specified.

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 ('Add hidden items') and exposes the endpoint POST /users/hidden/{section}, which makes the resource and operation understandable. It is not a tautology, but it leaves the meaning of 'hidden items' and the valid 'section' values somewhat vague, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_users_hidden_by_section_remove.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_users_hidden_by_section or create_users_hidden_by_section_remove. The only usage-related note is 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first,' which is a precondition for building the body, not a when-to-use guideline.

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