Hide or unhide a comment

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

Annotations already declare the operation is non-readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond these by clarifying that the operation is reversible, that this server cannot delete anything, and that support varies by network. That adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the 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?

Three short sentences each earn their place: the action, the non-deletion/reversibility caveat, and the network-capability prerequisite with a concrete pre-check call. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 four-parameter tool with an existing output schema and supportive annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what the tool does, that it is reversible, that deletion is impossible, and that network capability must be verified. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 75% and the schema already documents the meaning of hidden, social_network, and id_organization. The description adds conceptual context about reversible hiding but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so an adequate baseline score is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Hide a comment from the public timeline, or bring it back.' It also distinguishes the operation from deletion by explicitly saying 'it is not a deletion,' which separates it from any destructive intent and from sibling comment tools.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: hide/unhide is reversible, but not every network supports it (LinkedIn does not), and it instructs the agent to call get_social_capabilities first. This is concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named prerequisite.

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