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

The description adds one meaningful behavioral consequence: public agents can be invited cross-app by anyone who knows the address. It does not disclose effects of switching to private or unlisted, permissions required, or what happens to existing invites. Annotations already cover mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, so the additional context is useful but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant wording. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds relevant behavioral context without unnecessary detail.

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 simple two-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the action and one meaningful consequence, but it omits the expected return value and how to obtain or specify the agent identifier. The description is adequate but leaves several operational details unstated.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies the visibility parameter by listing its values and explaining the public option, but it leaves agentIdOrAddress effectively unexplained beyond the parameter name. The enum values are already present in the schema, so the description adds limited semantic value.

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 a specific action ('Set') and resource ('Agent's visibility'), and lists the three allowed values: private, unlisted, public. It does not explicitly compare against sibling agent tools, but the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from other agent-related operations.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The second sentence explains a consequence of public visibility, not usage context, leaving the agent to infer the tool's applicability from its name.

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