set_visibility

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an important behavioral trait: 'internal' and 'pii' pages are excluded from semantic search and Q&A by default. However, it does not cover permissions, reversibility, response behavior, or whether existing search indexes are updated.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds materially useful behavior. It avoids repeating schema information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is acceptable but not complete. It explains the main effect of visibility on search behavior but does not explain what happens to already-indexed pages, whether public pages are indexed by default, or what the caller should expect after performing the operation.

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, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It adds meaningful semantics to the 'level' enum by explaining the behavior of 'internal' and 'pii'. The 'slug' parameter is not explicitly described, though 'wiki page' makes its purpose reasonably inferable.

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 gives a specific verb ('set') and a clear resource ('visibility level of a wiki page'). It also specifies the three levels without naming a sibling, so the function's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools, but the visibility-specific scope is distinctive enough.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The statement that 'internal' and 'pii' pages are excluded from semantic search and Q&A implies a relevant consequence, but it does not tell an agent when to choose this tool over related tools like 'tag_note', 'update_note_section', or 'append_to_page'.

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