indicator_toggle_visibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it labels the operation STATE_MUTATING and discloses the prerequisite of a study entity ID from chart_get_state. It omits reversibility and permission details, but the mutation profile and precondition are clearly flagged.

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 purpose is front-loaded, then cleanly labeled WHEN TO USE / SIDE EFFECTS / LIMITATIONS sections. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 two-parameter toggle with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers action, trigger context, mutation side effect, and the entity-ID dependency. That is sufficient to call it correctly, with only minor omissions around reversibility.

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 100% and both parameters (visible, entity_id) are documented there. The description only restates the entity-ID prerequisite already present in the schema, adding no new syntax or format guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (show/hide) and resource (indicator/study plot on the chart canvas), which naturally separates it from siblings like indicator_set_inputs or chart_manage_indicator. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 'WHEN TO USE' clause gives a concrete scenario (decluttering the chart before visual analysis or screenshot capture), which is more than most definitions provide. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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