indicator_toggle_visibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without revealing side effects, persistence across chart changes, scope, or what happens if the entity_id is invalid. This is a minimal disclosure, not a transparent one.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains zero extraneous words and is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema fully documents both parameters, but the description lacks any usage guidance or behavioral context. Without annotations, an agent would not know about potential side effects or limitations, making this merely adequate rather than complete.

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% with both parameters already clearly described ('true to show, false to hide' and 'Entity ID of the study (from chart_get_state)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema fully handles this duty, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show or hide') and names a clear resource ('indicator/study on the chart'). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like indicator_add_from_search or chart_manage_indicator, which serve different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and basic purpose.

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