toggle_wireframe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that — the change is a temporary in-browser visual aid and is not meant to be reflected in code — but it doesn't clarify reversibility mechanics or interaction with other debug visuals.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the [DEBUG VISUAL] qualifier and the 'nothing to put in code' caveat immediately after. No filler and no repetition of the name.

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 zero-required-param debug toggle with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It does not, however, explain what happens to an already-active wireframe when toggled off versus restored, which the 'false=restore' parameter implies but the prose never makes explicit.

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%, so the schema already documents name, uuid and enabled (including 'omit for whole scene' and the toggle semantics). The description's 'all materials or one object' lightly reinforces the scoping choice but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 the concrete effect ('Wireframe on all materials or one object') and tags it as a debug visual, so an agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from visual siblings like toggle_overlay or highlight_object, keeping it at a 4 rather than 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?

'Temporary visual aid in the browser. Nothing to put in code.' communicates that this is a debugging-only, non-persistent action, which implies the context of use. However, it never names an alternative or states when to prefer it over toggle_overlay / highlight_object, so usage is only implied.

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