set_collection_visibility

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosure. It correctly states the primary behavior (setting viewport and render visibility) and scope (collection and objects). However, it does not disclose any side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements, leading to a moderate transparency score.

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, 13-word sentence that conveys the essential function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and perfectly concise.

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 simple parameter setter, the description is nearly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, the two visibility flags, and the scope. The only gap is the lack of clarification when to use this over set_visibility, but the explicit mention of 'collection and all its objects' partially addresses this.

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%, yet the description adds only a high-level mapping between 'viewport and render visibility' and the two boolean parameters. It does not explicitly link 'visible' to viewport visibility nor explain the parameters individually. The default values are in the schema but not discussed.

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 specifies the action (Set), the resource (collection and all its objects), and the two visibility types (viewport and render). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_visibility (which likely operates on individual objects) and scene_set_visibility (scene-level).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or provide comparisons to similar tools such as set_visibility or scene_set_visibility. Usage is implied but not directed.

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