pcb_set_text_visibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it explains that True/False set Component.NameOn and Component.CommentOn, None leaves fields unchanged, at least one field must be supplied, and filter matching is case-sensitive whole-string. It also documents the return structure, though it does not discuss document/selection prerequisites or undo behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then organized into workflows, Args, and Returns. The detail is justified by the total lack of schema parameter descriptions, and 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?

For a 3-parameter PCB mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, all parameter semantics, the key constraint that at least one visibility field must be supplied, and the returned fields. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: designators and comments are explained as tri-state booleans, and filter is documented as a case-sensitive whole-string name list with None meaning all components.

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 verb and resource: bulk-toggle component designator and comment visibility. It clearly distinguishes this tool from nearby PCB utilities such as text styling or layer visibility by focusing on component designator/comment fields.

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?

It gives concrete usage contexts: hiding designators for assembly PDFs, showing comments during value review, and hiding noisy 0402 designators. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this one, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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