unhide_reply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'unhide,' implying a mutation that changes visibility, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's reversible, rate limits, or what the output contains. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, and error conditions. The context signals suggest simplicity, but the description could be more complete for safe agent use.

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 description mentions 'a previously hidden reply,' which implies the 'tweet_id' parameter refers to a reply's ID, adding some context beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't clarify format (e.g., numeric string) or how to identify a reply versus a tweet. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides basic but incomplete compensation.

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 ('Unhide') and resource ('a previously hidden reply'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it operates on replies rather than tweets or users, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'hide_reply' beyond the opposite action.

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 reply must already be hidden), nor does it reference the sibling 'hide_reply' tool for context. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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