modifiers-set_visibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior on its own, but it only states the action and target. It does not mention whether unset booleans are left unchanged, how the active object is considered, whether any side effects occur, or what happens if the named modifier does not exist, making the behavior opaque.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words or redundancy, so it is concise. However, it is overly terse and does not use that compactness to deliver practical operational detail beyond a minimal action summary.

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?

Given seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It lacks any statement on which flags are actually set, what 'common' excludes, whether optional booleans default to false, and what the function returns or affects, leaving a substantial informational gap.

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 compensate, but it does not explain or augment any of the seven parameters. The phrase 'visibility flags' adds no meaning beyond the property titles already in the input schema, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema titles.

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 clearly identifies the action 'Set' and the resource 'common modifier stack visibility flags,' distinguishing it from the broader 'modifiers-set' and from outliner visibility tools. It is specific enough to know this concerns modifier visibility toggles, although it does not explicitly enumerate which flags or contrast the alternative modifiers-set tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternates such as modifiers-set or outliner-visibility_set. The sentence only paraphrases the tool's name, offering no exclusion criteria, context, or situational advice.

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