hide_section

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: visibility propagates to all modules inside the section. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or other side effects. This is a moderate level of transparency – useful but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and target, and the second sentence adds a key propagation detail. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or unnecessary repetition.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the important propagation behavior. It does not mention reversibility or response format, but these are not strictly necessary given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 defines two parameters (course_id and section_id) with clear, self-descriptive names and integer types. However, schema_description_coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain or elaborate on these parameters. The parameter names are intuitive enough, so the lack of additional semantics is acceptable but not fully compensated.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Hide' with the resource 'course section' and audience 'from students', and clarifies that visibility propagates to all modules inside the section. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like release_section, which makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the use case: use this tool when you want to hide a course section from students. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, such as using release_section to unhide, or any exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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