baker_set_visible

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, and "safe way to toggle" is consistent with that profile rather than contradicting it. The description adds that Low and High nodes can be targeted separately, but says nothing about what happens when visible is omitted or how low/high interact with it.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The second sentence is slightly promotional but still carries the safety signal, so nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a five-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from the text alone which parameters are required, what null means, or how the node-level flags combine.

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% across five parameters, so the description must carry the load. It loosely maps to groups, low, and high, but leaves visible and baker completely undefined and does not explain the precedence between visible and the low/high booleans.

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?

States a specific verb (show/hide) and resource (bake groups, plus their Low and High nodes), which is more precise than the name alone. It does not name the sibling it overlaps with, object_set_visible, so the distinction from scene-object visibility is left implicit.

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 safe way to toggle meshes in a bake scene" hints at when this is preferred over the generic object_set_visible, but never states the condition or names the alternative. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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