pro_assembly_visibility

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value by disclosing "native readback and rollback on failure; no rebuild or save" — rollback semantics and the absence of a rebuild step are not in the annotations. It still does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive or what happens to components not listed in the call.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose statement leads and the dry_run note closes. The middle sentence is a telegraphic fragment ("Native readback and rollback on failure; no rebuild or save") that reads cleanly but sacrifices a little clarity for terseness.

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 state-mutating tool with annotations, a conditional schema, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, rollback behavior, and the dry_run mode reasonably well. It omits what document_path addresses, the 128-item cap, and what a successful call returns or whether visibility changes persist, leaving meaningful gaps.

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% across three parameters, so the description must carry weight. It does explain the dry_run mode pairing with an empty components array, which is the single most non-obvious schema behavior. It says nothing about document_path (part vs. assembly path) or the component/visible pair structure, so compensation for the coverage gap is only partial.

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?

"Hide or show exact top-level components for staged assembly renders" gives a specific verb pair (hide/show), a precise resource (top-level components), and a scoping qualifier (staged assembly renders) that separates it from sibling mutation tools like pro_assembly_pose or insert_component. It stops short of naming a sibling it should be preferred over, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 final sentence, "dry_run with [] inventories visibility," is a concrete usage instruction for one mode, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over pro_assembly_pose, pro_assembly_configurations, or pro_visualize_scene, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., document must be open), so usage is only implied.

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