set_visibility

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds context about plan requirements and auth implications. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like potential service disruption or permission requirements beyond plan.

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?

Two-line bulleted format is highly concise. Every sentence adds new information: first sentence states purpose, subsequent bullets detail each option. No wasted words.

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 the tool has clear schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers visibility options and their constraints. Missing mention of return value (likely success/failure) but acceptable since no output schema and it's a setter.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the real-world meaning of each visibility option (login-gated, public web, etc.) beyond enum values, which is helpful but baseline is 3.

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 states the tool changes a project's visibility, with specific verb 'change' and resource 'project's visibility'. It distinguishes from siblings like update_project, which likely adjusts other project attributes.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance by detailing each visibility option's constraints (plans, auth needs). It implies when not to use (e.g., if project lacks required plan, this will fail), which helps agent avoid errors.

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