set_mobile_visibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side effect: 'Seeds a mobile layout entry mirroring the desktop position if none exists,' and clarifies that desktop visibility is unchanged. It does not mention reversibility or error conditions, but the essential behavior is well covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. It is concise without being under-specified, and the side effect is naturally integrated.

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 4-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: mobile-only scope, desktop unaffected, and the automatic seeding behavior. It does not mention prerequisites like an open report session, but the session ID parameter implies that, and the description is otherwise complete.

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 covers 75% of parameters, leaving reportSessionId undocumented. The description adds meaning for the visible parameter (false hides) and explains the mobile layout scope, but it does not compensate for the missing reportSessionId semantics. It mainly restates what the schema already says, adding little new parameter-specific 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 shows or hides a visual specifically on the phone/mobile layout only, using a specific verb ('Show or HIDE') and resource ('visual'). It explicitly distinguishes from desktop visibility and mentions the mobile-only scope, which differentiates it from generic visibility tools like set_visual_visibility.

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 clear context: use for mobile-only visibility changes, leaving desktop visibility unaffected. It implies the tool is for mobile layout adjustments but does not explicitly name alternative tools like set_visual_visibility or set_mobile_position, though the mobile-only wording effectively excludes their use.

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