hide_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: the output masquerades as an ordinary photo/video, the password is not stored anywhere and cannot be reset, and the result is written to disk. It omits limits worth knowing (format/size constraints, whether output_dir must pre-exist, overwrite behavior), so it is strong but not complete.

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 critical constraint (password is unrecoverable) is front-loaded in the second paragraph, and the args list is tight and one line per parameter. Slightly more prose than strictly needed, but nothing is wasted.

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 not be described, and the description supplies the safety-critical context an agent needs (password irrecoverability, output location). The remaining gap is edge-case behavior around the files involved, which is minor for this tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every one of the four parameters is explained semantically (secret_path = file to conceal, cover_path = carrier medium, password = reveal passphrase, output_dir = destination with a stated default). This exceeds what the bare schema titles provide.

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 and resource: 'Hide a file inside a cover image or video, and save the result to disk.' The inverse operation (reveal_file) is implied by 'Recovering the hidden file needs this exact password,' which gives enough contrast to place it among its siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (concealing a file inside a carrier medium) plus an important precondition: confirm the password with the user before running, since it cannot be reset. No explicit alternatives are offered, but the reveal/recover framing implicitly scopes the use case.

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