indicator_toggle_visibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'show or hide' and gives no indication of side effects, persistence, error behavior, or prerequisites like whether the study must already exist. For a mutation-like tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 two-parameter toggle, the description plus schema may be enough to invoke it, but there are gaps: no usage guidance relative to sibling tools, no return-behavior information despite no output schema, and no behavioral context beyond the literal action. It is adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters are documented: visible says 'true to show, false to hide' and entity_id is described as the study's ID from chart_get_state. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the schema-driven baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action ('Show or hide') and a specific resource ('indicator/study on the chart'). It is distinguishable from indicator_add, which is about adding indicators, and from indicator_set_inputs, which is about configuration. However, it does not explicitly contrast with chart_manage_indicator, leaving some potential ambiguity about scope.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to change the visibility of an existing indicator/study. The entity_id provenance from chart_get_state hints at the workflow, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus alternatives such as indicator_add or chart_manage_indicator, and no exclusions are stated.

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