show_or_hide_view_columns

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: 'every listed ID is set to that state, all other columns are untouched.' This explains the non-destructive, incremental nature beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences: first states purpose, second explains mechanism with clarity, third gives alternative tool recommendations. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. The important information is front-loaded.

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?

With 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's operation well. It explains the effect on columns and provides usage context. However, it doesn't describe the return value or error scenarios, which could be useful for a tool that modifies state. Still, for a simple toggle with idempotentHint, this is adequate.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that 'every listed ID is set to that state' (i.e., all columnIds are toggled to the same visibility flag) and that other columns remain unaffected. The debug parameter is also mentioned. This provides meaningful context beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Show or hide specific columns in a view without affecting others.' It identifies the specific verb ('show or hide') and resource ('columns in a view'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_view_columns' and 'show_or_hide_all_columns' by highlighting the incremental nature.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use `set_view_columns` instead when you want to define the full visible set from scratch. Use `show_or_hide_all_columns` to bulk-toggle every column at once.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives, with named siblings and specific scenarios.

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