display_ids

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

The description indicates the operation changes display state rather than model data, and the annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive. It does not go deeper to state whether the change persists, whether it affects the current view only, or what happens when both flags are false; but this is minor for a simple display toggle.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, and the parameter explanations are clear. It loses a point only for the bilingual repetition, which adds length without new semantic content for an English-only agent.

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 simple tool with two optional booleans and no output schema, the description plus schema provide core knowledge: purpose and per-parameter semantics. It is not a 5 because it does not explicitly address omission behavior or interaction between the two flags, though the schema defaults partially cover this.

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 carries the full burden for the two optional booleans. It fully compensates by explicitly stating 'True to show node IDs, False to hide' and the same for element IDs, which is exactly the semantic information an agent needs beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Toggle') and a precise resource ('the display of node and element IDs'), making the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous. It is also clearly distinct from sibling view-related tools such as set_render, reset_display, and set_view_angle, since no sibling targets ID visibility specifically.

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 intended use is implied by the description: call this tool when you want to show/hide node or element IDs. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over display-related siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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