toggle_overlay

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: what the panel renders, that it is temporary/debug-only, and that clicking a tree item highlights the object. It does not say whether the panel state persists across sessions or what toggling it on changes about the scene, but the added behavioral detail is substantive.

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 sentences, with the [DEBUG VISUAL] classification and 'Nothing to put in code' caveat front-loaded before the panel contents. No filler, though the tree-item click detail is slightly tangential to a toggle.

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 one-optional-param debug toggle with full schema coverage, annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it is, what it shows, and one interaction. Only the toggle-state semantics and its relation to kinetic siblings are unaddressed.

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 100% and the single 'enabled' param is fully documented in-schema ('true=show, false=hide, omit=toggle'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema already carries the semantics.

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 names a concrete artifact — an in-browser inspector panel showing FPS, draw calls, scene tree, materials and lights — which is clearly distinct from data siblings like scene_tree or perf_monitor. The [DEBUG VISUAL] tag and 'Temporary visual aid in the browser' make the intent readable, though the verb 'toggle' is never stated outright; the agent infers show/hide from the name.

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?

'Temporary visual aid' and 'Nothing to put in code' imply this is a dev-only inspection tool rather than something applied to the app, which is useful usage framing. However, it never says when to reach for this versus overlay_selected, highlight_object, perf_monitor or scene_tree, so routing among the many visual siblings is left to inference.

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