Mute an account

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) but say nothing about visibility or reversibility. The description adds two traits the annotations cannot express: the action is private ('without them knowing') and reversible, plus the concrete post-mute relationship state. It omits any note about what the target sees or required scopes, but the added behavioral value is real.

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, no filler, and the core effect plus its privacy guarantee are front-loaded ahead of the block comparison.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema action tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the effect, privacy property, reversibility, and sibling contrast. The only gap is that it does not name unmute_account as the undo path, which the 'reversible' claim naturally invites.

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 100% for both parameters, and the 'account' parameter even documents the list_accounts discovery path. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (hide/mute) applied to a specific resource (an account's posts) and states the effect scope ('from your feeds'). It also explicitly names and contrasts with the sibling block_account, so an agent can distinguish it from adjacent tools without reading schemas.

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?

'Unlike a block, they can still see and reply to you' tells the agent when to prefer mute over block, which is the key sibling decision. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or pointing at unmute_account for reversal, but the selection context is clear.

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