hide_reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('hide') but doesn't explain what 'hide' means operationally (e.g., whether it's reversible, visible to others, affects notifications, or requires specific permissions). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource efficiently, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, adhering to ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which alleviates need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and poor parameter documentation, it lacks completeness for safe and effective use—critical details like reversibility and permissions are missing.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter ('tweet_id') undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the action—it doesn't clarify what 'tweet_id' represents (e.g., the ID of the reply to hide, not the parent tweet) or provide format examples. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('hide') and target resource ('a reply to your tweet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unhide_reply' by specifying the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other tweet-modification tools like 'delete_tweet' or 'mute_user'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the tweet must be your own), compare with similar tools like 'delete_tweet' or 'mute_user', or indicate when hiding is preferable to other actions. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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