Edit keyword

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: hiding is non-destructive in effect (tracking continues, board visibility changes). It does not mention permissions or what happens to historical rank data on rename.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the semantic clarification of the hidden state. No filler.

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 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key state semantics. Minor gap: it does not say whether the label must be unique or whether renaming affects existing rank history.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema's terse 'true = hide, false = show again' by explaining the tracked-but-not-on-board consequence. The 'and/or' phrasing also clarifies that label and hidden can be combined in one call.

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+resource (rename a keyword, hide/unhide it) and immediately disambiguates the 'hidden' state as staying tracked but off the active board. An agent can distinguish it from remove_keywords, add_keywords, and localize_keyword without opening any schema.

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 parenthetical 'hidden keywords stay tracked but leave the active board' implicitly contrasts hiding with deletion, which is the main alternative an agent would weigh (remove_keywords). However, no sibling tool is named explicitly and no when-not-to-use condition is given.

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