Set Agent Visibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a consequence for public agents (cross-app invitation) but does not mention side effects on existing visibility or any restrictions. Given annotations are present, the description adds limited extra behavioral context.

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 with no redundancy. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a necessary prerequisite. It is appropriately sized and structured.

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's 'Requires' statement conflicts with the input schema's required field (only visibility is required), potentially leading an agent to omit the id. It also fails to clarify that agentId and agentIdOrAddress are aliases and that only one is needed. Given the low schema coverage, this is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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% (only agentId has a description). The description explains that an agent id or address is required and where to obtain it, and explains the effect of 'public' visibility. However, it does not clarify the alias relationship between agentId and agentIdOrAddress, nor that only one is needed, and it contradicts the schema by implying an id is required when the schema does not mark it as required.

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 verb 'set' and the resource 'Agent's visibility' with an explicit enumeration of the three allowed values (private | unlisted | public). It also adds a meaningful behavioral note about public agents being invitable cross-app, which helps distinguish this tool from siblings like ethora-agents-update-v2.

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 gives a prerequisite by stating that an agent id or address is required and references where to obtain it (ethora-agents-list-v2 or ethora-agents-create-v2). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like ethora-agents-update-v2 or ethora-agents-activate-v2, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this tool.

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