marketplace_toggle_sidebar_highlight

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true) and the description does not contradict them. It adds the useful frame-already-installed precondition, but omits the most behaviorally significant fact: that the mode enum selects a dry-run (plan) versus a real mutation (apply).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the action plus scope come first. It is efficient but undersized for the amount of undocumented behavior it must carry.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and near-zero schema documentation, the description is far too thin. It never explains plan vs apply, the frame type selector, or ownership requirements, leaving an agent materially under-informed before calling it.

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 only 14%, leaving six of seven parameters undocumented in structured data. The description only illuminates user_id ("optionally for one user") and vaguely hints at is_enabled; the critical mode (plan/apply), type, and the ownership-checking partner_id remain unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: enabling or clearing a highlight on an installed sidebar frame, scoped optionally to one user. That is enough to distinguish it from install/entity-frame siblings, though it never names a sibling tool to reinforce the distinction.

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?

"already installed" implicitly conveys a prerequisite, and "optionally for one user" hints at scoping. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over marketplace_install_sidebar_frame or replace_entity_frames, nor on how the plan/apply mode changes the workflow.

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