set_visual_background

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 adds valuable context about transparency semantics (0=opaque, 100=fully transparent) and that it creates an OVERLAY background preserved by clear_visual_styling. But it doesn't disclose whether setting show=false clears existing backgrounds or how it interacts with current settings, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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-loaded with the primary purpose. Every phrase adds value (optionality, transparency semantics, preservation by clear_visual_styling). No wasted words.

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 setter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key parameters, transparency edge case, and its relationship to clear_visual_styling. It doesn't mention error conditions or permission needs, but given the tool's low complexity, this is reasonably 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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that show/color/transparency are all optional and explains the transparency scale and OVERLAY behavior, adding meaning beyond the schema. The required params (reportSessionId, page, visual) are self-explanatory context, so this is sufficient.

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 'Set a visual's BACKGROUND' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool set_visual_format by calling itself a 'typed convenience over set_visual_format', making its niche clear.

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?

Mentions it's a typed convenience over set_visual_format, implying when to use this tool over the general one. References clear_visual_styling behavior, providing context. However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions like 'do not use if you need to change other visual properties'.

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