set_widget_visibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds value by documenting the return shape, notably the distinction between requested_visibility and actual_visibility, implying the set can fail to apply. It does not explain the meaning of 'destructive' here or any permission requirements, so the bar set by annotations is only partially met.

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 operation is front-loaded in a single tight sentence, with the return contract separated into its own block. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool with no wasted prose.

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 usefully documents the return fields, and annotations cover the safety profile while the schema covers both parameters. The main gap is the absence of when-to-use routing against sibling widget setters, but for a simple setter the essentials are present.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description restates the visibility values already present in the schema enum-style text but adds no extra semantics (e.g., what each state actually does to layout/hit-testing), so it lands at 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Set widget visibility state') and enumerates the five valid states, so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like set_widget_property or set_widget_slot_properties, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related widget setters (set_widget_property, set_pie_widget_value) and no mention of prerequisites or context. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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