set_layer_visibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states a brief mutating action. It does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, affects other layers, triggers side effects, or requires specific permissions, leaving significant behavioral traits unclear.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity risks underspecification, but for a simple toggle it is appropriately 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?

Given no output schema, low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, error states, or the exact behavior when a layer is already in the requested visibility state, which is critical 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?

Only 33% schema description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The 'visible' boolean and 'layer' string are not elaborated (e.g., layer name vs ID, whether visible is a toggle or explicit set), so an agent must infer from names 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?

Description 'Show or hide a layer.' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_layer_lock or add_layer by focusing on visibility toggling, but lacks specificity about the layer identification method.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description does not help the agent decide between, e.g., set_layer_visibility and other layer manipulation tools.

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