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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Show or hide' implies a reversible state toggle but says nothing about whether the change persists, what permissions are needed, or whether hiding the notch affects other frame/border settings.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded ahead of the target. Efficient, though it is arguably too terse rather than wasteful.

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?

A 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage receives very little compensating detail. An agent lacks the identifier semantics and behavioral context needed to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but only partially does: 'show or hide' maps to the boolean `show`, but platformSetId is never explained (identifier format, where to obtain it). Half the parameters remain undocumented.

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 pair ('show or hide') and a specific resource ('the notch on a platform set'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool manipulates. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent appearance tools like set_realistic_frame or set_squircle_frame, which is why it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the other 'set_' appearance tools or any prerequisite (e.g. that the platform set must already exist). Usage is only inferable from the name.

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