Set an explicit visibility target and verify it; never blindly toggle.
Set an explicit visibility target and verify it; never blindly toggle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| visible | Yes | ||
| entity_id | Yes | Exact registered study ID | |
| target_id | Yes | Exact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes. | |
| expected_layout_id | Yes | Expected saved-layout ID. A mismatch stops the operation before writing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is a mutating, non-idempotent, open-world operation that is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds a useful verification/guardrail expectation, but it does not explain side effects, persistence, permissions, or what verification entails beyond what the schema's expected_layout_id note provides.
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 a single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is efficient, though its slogan-like terseness leaves some ambiguity.
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 schema and annotations carry much of the needed context: required parameters, target ID, layout mismatch guard, and mutation safety profile. Still, the description does not explain the verification step or the operational context for a non-idempotent mutation tool, leaving a moderate completeness gap.
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 75%, with entity_id, target_id, and expected_layout_id documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific action: set an explicit visibility target and verify it. Combined with the tool name, it is clear this is about indicator visibility, but the description itself does not name the resource or distinguish it from related indicator tools.
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 phrase 'never blindly toggle' implies a guardrail-style usage pattern, and 'verify it' suggests a post-set check. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus indicator_add, indicator_remove, or other indicator tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.