set_visible

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: hidden nodes remain in the layer tree, descendants are hidden, and the operation is fully reversible. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) without contradicting them, providing the agent with a clear safety profile.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the primary action, explains the behavioral implications in one sentence, and then provides alternatives and the return value. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, its side effects (hidden from rendering/exports, descendants hidden), reversibility, alternatives, and the return shape. No critical information is missing.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (nodeId and visible). The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema states, but it does clarify the overall effect of the visible flag, which is marginal added value.

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's function: 'Show or hide a node by toggling its visible flag.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning delete_nodes and set_opacity as alternatives, making the tool's specific purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: it explains the tool's effect on rendering and exports, notes reversibility, and gives clear alternatives ('To remove a node use delete_nodes; to dim one... use set_opacity'). This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus related ones.

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