sch_toggle_pin_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 discloses that the operation mutates the schematic, that an empty designator triggers a sheet-wide bulk change (a meaningful blast-radius fact), and that omitted flags are left untouched. It omits whether the change is undoable, persisted, or requires a specific edit mode.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then the targeting/flag semantics, then a compact Args/Returns block. The Args block largely restates the prose above it, a small redundancy, but every line still carries actionable meaning.

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, yet the description still names the key field (pins_modified). Combined with full parameter documentation and the bulk-vs-single targeting rule, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and the schema titles are bare, but the description fully compensates: `designator` with "" meaning all components, and both boolean flags documented as tri-state (True/False sets, omitted leaves unchanged). That tri-state semantics is the critical detail the schema cannot convey.

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 first sentence names a specific verb pair (show/hide) and a precise resource (pin name / designator labels on schematic symbols). Scope is further narrowed to schematic symbols, which cleanly separates it from PCB-side siblings such as pcb_set_text_visibility.

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 description explains the targeting rule (single component via `designator`, or every component on the active sheet when empty) and the set-vs-leave-unchanged convention for the flags. It gives clear operating context but does not name an alternative tool or state preconditions such as needing an active schematic document open.

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