Set source visibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the non-toggling deterministic behavior and the scene-restoration side effect, but it does not mention return values, error handling, or required permissions. This is moderately transparent but incomplete.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase contributes meaning. There is 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?

The description covers the key side effect (scene restoration) and the schema handles parameter meanings, but without an output schema, it should explain what the tool returns or how verification is exposed. The lack of return-value/error detail leaves some ambiguity, making it adequate 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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, though 'targeting another scene' indirectly refers to sceneName.

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 and verifies source visibility, with a specific resource (source) and action. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mute controls by focusing on visibility. The phrase 'without a blind toggle' adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 use when you need to set a source to a specific visible state, and mentions the scene-restoration side effect when targeting another scene. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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