object.visibility.set

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavior by specifying 'absolute' flag setting and restricting changes to the active transaction, which implies changes are not final until commit. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the action, scope, and transactional context efficiently.

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 tool with seven parameters and five required, the description omits important context: what null means for each visibility flag, why expected_object_identity and expected_scene_generation are required, and how the idempotency key should be used. The output schema does not fill these semantic gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the seven parameters. It mentions viewport/render visibility flags, roughly mapping to hide_viewport and hide_render, but it fails to explain null semantics, the meaning of true/false, or the roles of expected_object_identity, expected_scene_generation, and idempotency_key.

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 ('Set') plus a clear resource ('object viewport and/or render visibility flags'), and 'absolute' clarifies that this is a direct assignment rather than a toggle. This distinguishes it from broader siblings like object.set and object.delete.

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 phrase 'inside the active transaction' clearly tells the agent this tool must be used within an open transaction, after transaction.begin and before commit. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of full 5.

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