create_users_hidden_by_section_remove

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the core behavioral profile. The description adds that this removes hidden items and that the body schema should be discovered via GET/schema, which is useful but minimal. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely compact, with the action front-loaded and no fluff. The HTTP path is somewhat redundant but still useful, and the Args list is minimal. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description delegates body field details to external references (GET/schema), which works for an open-world resource, but it doesn't explain what sections are valid or the precise removal semantics beyond the obvious.

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 provides only types for section and body with zero descriptions. The description clarifies section is a path parameter and body is a payload whose fields must be discovered via GET/schema. This adds guidance but leaves valid section values and exact body shape unspecified.

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 clear action ('Remove hidden items') and the endpoint path identifies the section resource, distinguishing it from likely siblings like create_users_hidden_by_section. However, the main sentence is generic and doesn't explicitly say 'for a section' until the Args list, so it's slightly less specific.

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 on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The advice to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint is about preparing the body, not about tool selection. Siblings like create_users_hidden_by_section or create_users_hidden_calendar_remove are never mentioned.

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