set_object_visibility

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 that it 'sets' visibility, implying a mutation, but does not explain whether it overwrites existing settings, the effect of omitted parameters (defaults), or any side effects. The description is too sparse to fully inform the agent of behavioral traits beyond the obvious action.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of a single sentence plus a short Args list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter setter with no output schema, the description is largely adequate. However, it lacks any usage context, such as when to prefer this over batch_visibility or set_collection_visibility, and it doesn't mention that visibility changes are reversible. Given the low complexity, it is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 schema has zero description coverage, but the Args section adds brief clarifications: 'visible' is viewport visibility and 'hide_render' is render visibility. This goes slightly beyond the schema titles and helps disambiguate the meaning of hide_render. However, the 'name' parameter is merely restated as 'Object name,' adding no depth. Overall, it provides minimal added value over the schema.

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 verb ('set') and the resource ('object viewport and/or render visibility'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_collection_visibility by explicitly scoping to objects. The action and target are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_visibility or set_collection_visibility. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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