set_collection_visibility

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

The only annotation is idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the operation itself: it does not explain the semantics of null values (whether they mean 'do not change' or 'hide'), nor whether nested objects or render settings are affected. With minimal annotations, the description carries a heavier burden that it does not meet.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and scope. It is extremely efficient and easy to parse, exactly as a tool description should be.

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?

This is a simple 3-parameter tool and an output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained. However, the description omits crucial behavior around optional parameters: both render and viewport default to null, which likely signals 'leave unchanged,' but the description does not state this. It also gives no hint about whether the collection must already exist or whether the operation affects nested objects, leaving room for incorrect invocation.

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 must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It names the two contexts (viewport and render) that correspond to the boolean parameters, which is somewhat helpful, but it does not clarify the meaning of null/default values or how the collection name is resolved. The added semantic value over the bare parameter names is minimal.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and identifies the exact resource ('collection visibility') along with the two possible scopes ('viewport and/or render'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like toggle_modifier_visibility or set_viewport_shading, which address different visibility/shading concerns. The mapping to the schema parameters (name, viewport, render) is immediate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as toggle_modifier_visibility, set_viewport_shading, or move_to_collection. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., an existing collection) or mention that optional parameters left null likely mean 'leave unchanged.' An agent must infer the use case solely from the tool name and the brief description.

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