set_table_visibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (toggling visibility in the field list) and the example adds context. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or persistence of the change, which would be valuable for full 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and an example without any filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick understanding.

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 the tool's low complexity and lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description covers the main function but leaves gaps: sessionId is unaddressed, and parameter semantics are under-specified. It is sufficient for basic selection but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly covers 'table' and 'hidden' ('hide or show') but does not explain the exact meaning of 'hidden' (e.g., true=hidden) or clarify what 'table' refers to (name, ID). Moreover, 'sessionId' is entirely absent from the description, leaving the parameter unexplained.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Hide or show a whole table in the field list.' It distinguishes itself from sibling visibility tools (e.g., set_column_visibility, set_visual_visibility) by focusing on entire tables and provides a concrete example (bridge/parameter table).

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 implies when to use the tool via the example 'hide a bridge/parameter table,' giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for column/visual visibility, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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