imgui_set_window_visibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it doesn't explain what 'setting its open state' means behaviorally - whether hidden windows still exist, whether their widgets remain interactive, whether there's a distinction between 'hidden' and 'closed', or what the return value indicates. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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?

Single declarative sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the purpose. Concise but perhaps overly terse given the lack of behavioral detail elsewhere. For the content it conveys, it's efficiently structured.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool, the description should do more heavy lifting. It doesn't address lifecycle semantics (does hide persist?), the distinction between visible=false and window removal, or relationships with imgui_create_window/imgui_remove_window/imgui_window_control siblings. The description is adequate to distinguish intent but inadequate for confident execution.

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%, with both 'window' and 'visible' having descriptions. The description's phrase 'setting its open state' maps conceptually to the 'visible' parameter, but adds nothing beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies - the description doesn't add meaningful parameter nuance.

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 the verb+resource clearly ('Show or hide a window by setting its open state'). It somewhat distinguishes from siblings like imgui_move_window or imgui_resize_window, but it's generic and doesn't specify behaviors like persistence, toggling, or whether it correlates with a stored 'open state'. It's clear but minimal.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like imgui_window_control, imgui_create_window, imgui_remove_window, or imgui_set_widget_visibility. There's no mention of when hiding/showing is appropriate, whether visible=false destroys any state, or whether it interacts with window control mechanisms. Context is implied but never stated.

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