ap_object_set_visible

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that a hidden object stays in the project with materials intact and merely stops rendering, which goes well beyond the basic show/hide semantics. It does not cover every possible side effect, but for a simple boolean setter it provides meaningful transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core action and then add a valuable clarifying detail about hidden objects persisting with materials intact. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete: it explains purpose, effect, and non-destructive behavior. It slightly misses out on mention of return values or error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation.

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 input schema already covers both parameters clearly: 'name' as the object name and 'visible' as 'True to show, false to hide'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add much, and it does not go beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 opens with 'Show or hide a scene object', a specific verb and resource, and then clarifies the semantics with 'visible flag' and 'stops rendering'. This clearly positions it as a visibility control tool and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with transforms, materials, or scene structure.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned, but the context is clear: the tool is for controlling whether an object renders. The phrase 'hidden object stays in the project' implies a non-destructive visibility workflow, so usage is reasonably implied even though no direct comparison to siblings is provided.

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