object_set_visible

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

Annotations only declare that this is not read-only and not destructive; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the refusal behavior for submeshes/meshes and the concrete failure mode ('corrupt bakes or crash Toolbag on load'). It doesn't describe what happens to already-invisible objects or the response shape, but the risk disclosure is the high-value information here.

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?

Three tight sentences with the capability stated first and the routing hint last. The middle sentence about refusals is slightly compressed ('Refuses submeshes always') but no sentence 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 needn't be explained, and the description covers scope, hidden refusal rules, and safer alternatives. The remaining gap is the ambiguous `refs` parameter format, which an agent must guess from the anyOf schema alone.

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 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain allow_mesh's effect and why it exists, but says nothing about what form `refs` takes (id vs name vs array) or that `visible` is the boolean toggle. Partial compensation only.

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+resource ('Show or hide groups, lights, cameras or bake nodes') and enumerates exactly which object types it applies to. The agent can distinguish it from baker_set_visible without opening either schema, since the description explicitly routes bake scenes elsewhere.

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?

Gives explicit exclusions ('Refuses submeshes always and meshes unless allow_mesh is true') and names two alternative tools (baker_set_visible, baker_isolate) with the condition that selects them ('For bake scenes'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives structure.

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