set_visual_visibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect (visibility toggle in the base layout) and the display.mode context, but does not mention persistence, reversibility, or potential side effects. For a simple setter this is moderately adequate, but lacks depth.

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 primary action and followed by a practical tip. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 4 required params, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It provides the key prerequisite (list_visuals) but does not explain the purpose of all parameters or mention return behavior. The reference to display.mode adds nuance, but the overall completeness for a modestly complex operation is insufficient.

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%, and the description compensates only partially. It implies the 'hidden' boolean controls visibility and mentions visualName via list_visuals, but reportSessionId and pageName are left unexplained. With four required parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 action ('Show or hide a visual'), the resource (visual), and adds scope ('in the base layout (display.mode)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_visual_display_mode or set_mobile_visibility, and the mention of display.mode adds specificity.

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?

It instructs the user to call list_visuals to get names, providing a clear prerequisite and context for usage. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the prerequisite and scope provide a solid rationale for selection.

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