add_visibility_track

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by documenting the forwarded return payload fields (section_created, section_count, saved, etc.), which is meaningful given there is no output schema; it stops short of noting side effects like asset saving beyond the 'saved' flag.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by a clearly separated return-value block. The returns enumeration is slightly long but earns its place given the absent output schema.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the definition supplies the missing return-shape information and the wrapper relationship to add_property_track. It is largely complete, though it does not resolve the add_level_visibility_track ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents sequence_name, binding_guid, and track_label. The description adds only the 'bVisible' property detail (not a parameter) and no additional meaning for the parameters themselves, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a precise verb+resource ("Add a Visibility property track on bVisible to a Level Sequence binding") and explicitly identifies itself as a thin wrapper over add_property_track, so an agent can tell it apart from the generic sibling. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly-named add_level_visibility_track sibling, leaving some ambiguity about which visibility track tool to pick.

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?

Calling itself a "thin domain wrapper over add_property_track" implies it should be preferred over the generic tool when a visibility track is wanted, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or routing to add_level_visibility_track. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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