toggle_modifier_visibility

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

The idempotentHint annotation is present, and the description doesn't contradict it. The description adds the 'viewport and/or render' scoping, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what 'toggle' means when both viewport and render are null, or whether the operation is a true toggle (flip current state) or a set-to-value operation. The annotation covers idempotency, but the description could add more behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It is appropriately sized for a simple toggle operation, with no wasted words. It could arguably include more detail, but for its length it is well-structured.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the meaning of null for viewport/render, the expected values for object/modifier, or what the output schema contains. An agent would need to infer too much about how to invoke this correctly, especially the toggle semantics when one scope is null.

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. It mentions 'viewport and/or render' which maps to the viewport and render parameters, but it doesn't explain the semantics of the boolean values (true/false/null) or how the 'object' and 'modifier' parameters are used. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 'Toggle modifier visibility in viewport and/or render' clearly states the action (toggle), the resource (modifier visibility), and the two scopes (viewport and/or render). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_modifier_property or list_modifiers, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The verb 'toggle' is specific enough to convey the behavior.

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 implies usage: call this when you want to show/hide a modifier in viewport or render. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like set_modifier_property, nor does it explain the semantics of the boolean/null parameters (e.g., what null means). The context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are not addressed.

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