plasticity_set_visibility

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: hidden geometry is not deleted and is restorable with the same tool, effectively clarifying that the 'destructive' flag overstates the risk. It does not, however, disclose the concurrency/revision requirement or permission expectations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the restoration caveat following. No filler or redundancy.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description covers purpose and reversibility but omits the meaning of the required 'revision' (likely an optimistic-concurrency token) and 'visible' arguments. Enough to call it, not enough to call it safely.

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 carry the load, and it only partly does. The four entity types named ('bodies, instances, reference meshes, groups') give real meaning to bodyIds, instanceIds, referenceMeshIds and groupIds, but the required 'visible' and 'revision' parameters and the 'intent' field are left completely opaque.

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 gives a specific verb ('Set ... visibility') and enumerates the exact target resource classes ('current bodies, linked instances, approximate reference meshes, or groups'), so the agent knows precisely what the tool operates on. It is unambiguous and cannot be confused with the selection/list/inspection siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the adjacent list/select/set_locked/activate_group tools, nor any precondition or exclusion. Usage is only inferable from the purpose itself, which falls short of explicit guidance.

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