Show/hide scene item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds only that it enables or disables, which is consistent with the annotations. It does not disclose additional behavioral details such as reversibility or side effects, but for such a simple toggle this is acceptable. 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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded, stating the action immediately. However, brevity comes at the cost of completeness, which is penalized elsewhere.

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 tool with 4 parameters and 50% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to obtain sceneItemId, the meaning of enabled, or any expected output. While an output schema exists, the description should still provide enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly without prior knowledge.

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 only 50% (sceneId and sceneName have descriptions, but sceneItemId and enabled do not). The description provides no additional meaning for any parameter. It does not explain that sceneItemId identifies the specific item (likely from scene_item_list) or that enabled sets visibility. Given the low coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 verb (enable/disable) and the resource (scene item). It is distinguishable from siblings like scene_item_remove or scene_item_transform_set, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The title 'Show/hide scene item' reinforces the intent, but the description alone is sufficient to convey the core purpose.

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 alternatives. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a sceneItemId via scene_item_list) nor any exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name and context. This is a significant gap for a tool in a large sibling set.

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