Show/hide source in all scenes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action and scope, but it does not disclose failure conditions, whether the source must already exist, or how scenes without the source are handled. The example adds practical context, but some edge-case behavior remains unspecified.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core behavior, and includes a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main behavior and scope adequately. It does not explain return values (covered by the output schema) or error conditions, but the core operation is clear. Some context about scene collections or source existence would improve completeness, but it is not essential for basic use.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate adequately. It mentions 'source' and 'visible or hidden,' which hint at source_name and visible, but it does not explain that visible is a boolean, how source_name matching works, or provide explicit parameter-level guidance. The schema titles add some clarity, but the description adds minimal value beyond them.

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 specific action: making a source visible or hidden in every scene that contains it. This clearly distinguishes it from per-scene tools like show_source and hide_source by emphasizing the 'every scene' scope, and the example reinforces the purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to change visibility across all scenes at once. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'every scene' and the example 'everywhere' imply the bulk use case versus single-scene operations.

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