set_memory_visibility

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auto-promotion side effect (stamps agentId/memoryType/etc.) and explains the time-window and role gate behaviors. However, it does not mention failure modes, permission requirements, or reversibility.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Critical information is front-loaded: purpose, then auto-promotion, then extensions. Every sentence adds value.

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 has 6 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior and extension parameters well. It might benefit from mentioning return value or side effects, but it is sufficiently complete for an access control mutation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the η.5.5.b extensions (allowedRoles, visibleFrom, visibleUntil) and the auto-promotion behavior that relates to the agentId parameter. This additional semantic information improves over the schema alone.

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 sets visibility of a memory entity for multi-agent access control. It specifies the auto-promotion behavior and the η.5.5.b extensions. The title and description together uniquely identify the tool's action and resource, and no sibling tool duplicates this function.

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 usage when controlling multi-agent access, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_visible_memories' or 'rbac_*' tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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