set_show_flag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the return shape (useful because there is no output schema) and the viewport scope, but it never explains why this is flagged destructive or what side effects occur, so it adds only moderate value over the 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?

Two front-loaded lines: purpose first, return shape second, with no filler. The inline JSON return literal is slightly dense but is legitimate given the absence of an output schema, so this is efficient overall.

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 two-parameter viewport tool whose annotations cover safety and whose schema covers both params, the definition is adequate: it gives purpose and a return shape. It still omits the usage context and any explanation of the destructive flag, leaving minor gaps an agent must fill.

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%, with 'enabled' ('True to set the flag, false to clear it') and 'flag_name' (with concrete examples like Grid, Bounds, Collision) fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('set/toggle an engine show flag') scoped to 'the active editor viewport,' which meaningfully separates it from viewport-mode siblings like set_viewport_view_mode and set_view_type. The only weakness is a small terminology mismatch: it says 'toggle' while the parameter 'enabled' sets an explicit state, and it never names a sibling outright.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It does not say whether this is preferable to set_viewport_view_mode for visual debugging, nor what preconditions (an open viewport) must hold. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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