indicator_toggle_visibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuine value by revealing that the tool verifies its work by reading the study back rather than trusting setVisible(), which tells the agent the result is confirmed. But it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as failure modes, reversibility, or side effects for a mutation operation.

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 tight sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the toggle nuance, then the verification note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core action, the parameter nuance, and the verification behavior. It's near-complete; only failure/return behavior is unaddressed, which is minor given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description restates the 'omit visible to toggle' behavior that is also in the schema, adding only marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the structured schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verbs (show, hide, flip) applied to a specific resource (indicator on the chart). The dual mode — explicit set versus toggle — is unambiguous and the 'flip' behavior distinguishes this from general indicator-management siblings like chart_manage_indicator.

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?

The description implies when to use it (manipulating an indicator's visibility on the chart) and the toggle-vs-set distinction is clear. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not-to-use context, even though chart_manage_indicator could plausibly overlap with visibility control.

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