set_raster_layer_visible

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a reversible, non-destructive display-state change, but does not say whether the flag persists to the project, whether it is undoable, whether it affects exports/rendering, or what happens if the id is unknown.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness is under-specification rather than true conciseness for a tool with an ambiguous verb.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a bare description leave the agent without the information needed to call this confidently. At minimum it should clarify the set-vs-toggle semantics and the mutation's persistence.

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 coverage is 0% for two required parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning, and it fails to distinguish them. Worse, 'Toggle' suggests flipping the current state, while the required 'visible' boolean actually sets an explicit value — a genuine ambiguity that could cause a wrong call.

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 names a specific verb ('Toggle'/'set') and resource ('raster layer's visibility flag'), and the word 'raster' distinguishes it from the many vector-layer and entity tools in the sibling list. It is clear what operation is performed, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closely named sibling set_layer_visible.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g. the layer must already be attached via attach_raster_layer), and no alternatives. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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