hide

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered structurally. The description contributes the useful clarification that only the visual representation changes, not the underlying molecular data, but it omits what happens when the representation was never shown and how scenes/views are affected.

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. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter display toggle, though it is arguably too terse to earn 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?

For a simple idempotent display toggle with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is minimally sufficient. It leaves the show/hide relationship and the 'everything' shortcut to the schema rather than stating them itself.

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 coverage is 100%, so both `selection` (including its 'all' default) and `representation` are fully documented in the schema, and the schema even points to `show` for vocabulary. The description adds only the phrase 'for a given selection', which is baseline-level 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 states a specific verb and resource: hides a graphical representation for a selection. That is clearly distinct from mutation-style siblings, but it never names its natural counterpart `show`, so the pairing must be inferred from the schema text rather than the description.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the inverse `show` operation, and no note that hiding an already-hidden representation is a no-op. Usage is only implied by the verb itself.

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