Set visibility

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: per-item results (`items: [{ id, ok, error? }]`) and the fact that one node failing does not fail the whole call. The editor-support scope (Design verified, FigJam/Slides unverified) is also useful context. It does not cover permission/auth needs or the 500-node cap's implications.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action, then return/error semantics, then environment scope. Nothing is wasted and there is no preamble.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the return contract and partial-failure semantics, which is exactly what an agent needs before batching up to 500 nodes. Remaining gaps (parameter formats, whether hiding is reversible via undo) are minor.

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 50%: `session` and `idempotencyKey` are documented in-schema, while `nodeIds` and `visible` are bare. The description implies the boolean semantics of `visible` and ties per-item `id` back to nodeIds, but adds no format, ordering, or batching guidance beyond that, so it neither compensates for the gap nor falls below the baseline.

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 precise verb pair and resource: 'Hide or show nodes'. This is unambiguous and cannot be confused with adjacent siblings like figma_set_locked, figma_set_opacity, or figma_set_mask, which operate on different properties.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (set_locked, set_opacity, delete_nodes) or what prerequisites apply. The 'Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides' note is environment applicability, not usage guidance, so no routing help is provided.

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