set_visible

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the tool updates the JCAD document and mandates reading the current design first, which is valuable context for a mutating operation. It doesn't cover reversibility or errors, but it provides the key side effect.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear parameter notes and a necessary warning. Each sentence contributes value; only minor formatting inconsistency (param lines vs. prose) prevents a 5.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the critical update side effect and prerequisite, but it leaves jcad_path undefined and value type ambiguous. It's adequate for a simple mutation tool but has clear 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?

The description explains 'name' and 'value' (True/False), adding meaning beyond the bare schema types. However, 'jcad_path' is left unexplained, and 'value' is declared as string in the schema while the description implies boolean, creating ambiguity. With 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 'Set the visibility of an object' uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools list confirms no overlap (e.g., set_color for color, remove for deletion). It clearly states the tool's function.

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 gives explicit context: 'To understand the current state of the document, you MUST first use the get_current_cad_design tool.' This tells the agent when to use this tool relative to a required prerequisite, though it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions.

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