set_text_visibility

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses dry-run semantics and the millimetre unit convention, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or the fact that setting visibility writes to the document when dry_run=false. Some behavioral context is provided, but significant gaps remain.

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 concise, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The unit note and external schema reference add some length but are plausibly useful. Overall, it's tightly written with no redundant filler.

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?

Even with an output schema, the description omits crucial context about how to specify which text to modify (via selector, path, or txid) and what 'Common' visibility means. For a 7-parameter mutation tool, this gap makes the description insufficient for correct invocation without additional investigation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage. The description explains the roles of dry_run and expected_sha256, but says nothing about selector, path, txid, the visibility enum, or allow_locked. Most of the 7 parameters lack meaningful explanation, leaving the agent to rely on 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Set' and resource 'visibility for component silk/assembly markings', making the tool's function clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_text_style, but the resource scope provides adequate distinction.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: start with dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and passing its expected_sha256. This gives clear when-to and when-not-to instructions, though no alternative tools are mentioned.

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