set_visual_display_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying property being modified, explains the effect of spotlight (dims everything else), and notes a persistence caveat for live states. This is strong behavioral transparency, though it could mention error conditions or return values.

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 and front-loaded with the action ('Set a visual's DISPLAY STATE'). Every phrase adds value: the mode enumeration, the underlying property name, and the persistence note. No redundant or tangential content.

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 setter with four required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, all mode options, and an important persistence caveat. It does not explain return values or failure scenarios, but these are less critical for this type of tool given the reasonably rich schema and clear intent.

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 high (75%) since three of four parameters are described. The description adds semantic value to the 'mode' parameter by explaining what each mode does (e.g., spotlight dims everything else, normal removes the override), which goes beyond the bare enum list in the schema. The 'reportSessionId' parameter remains underdescribed, but the overall param handling is solid.

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: setting a visual's display state on a page, listing the specific modes (normal, hidden, spotlight, maximize, focus). It also identifies the underlying property being written (singleVisual.display.mode), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify other visual properties or 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 implies when to use the tool (to change display mode) and provides a caveat about spotlight/focus needing bookmarks to persist in Desktop, along with the note that 'normal' removes the override. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like set_visual_visibility or set_visual_format, or specify when not to use this tool.

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