Set presentation mode

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: exactly what is hidden and where (overview, menu bar, Mission Control), that names and notes are preserved and restored, that the change is reversible by calling again, and a minimum version requirement of Spacepal 1.2.8.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence conveys useful information about behavior or requirements. The sentence "Reversible by calling it again" partially duplicates the idempotentHint annotation, a minor redundancy worth a small deduction.

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 one-parameter toggle with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, effects, data preservation, reversibility, and version prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single boolean parameter is already fully documented in the schema as hiding versus showing names, notes, and previews. The description's phrasing mirrors the schema rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Turn Spacepal's presentation mode on or off." It goes further to state the concrete effect (showing "Desktop N" instead of Space names, hiding notes, badges, and window previews), which makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_spaces or open_overview.

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 a clear context for use — screen sharing without exposing private information — and clarifies the relationship with the sibling tool list_spaces, which still returns real names. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a true alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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