batch_set_visibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the core effect—changing visibility of nodes—but it does not disclose secondary behavior such as all-or-nothing failure, handling of invalid node IDs, or idempotency. For a simple, low-risk mutation, the core behavior is at least transparent enough to earn a baseline score.

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 five words, front-loads the action and target, and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it an appropriately concise definition.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, this description plus the schema is nearly sufficient: an agent knows what to pass and what effect to expect. It would be fully complete if it explicitly clarified that visible=true shows and visible=false hides, or if it named set_visibility as the single-node alternative.

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 nodeIds and visible are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'multiple' qualifier and no additional format, syntax, or range details, which matches the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters.

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 concrete action (show/hide) on a concrete resource (multiple nodes), and the word 'multiple' clearly differentiates it from the singular set_visibility sibling. It is not a tautology of the tool name and tells an agent exactly what the tool accomplishes.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus set_visibility or other batch tools. The only usage cue is the implied 'multiple nodes' scope, but no alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are stated.

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