dossier_visibility

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description confirms mutation ('Updates'). No additional behavioral context is provided, such as side effects, permission requirements beyond prerequisites, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds essential prerequisites. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should cover return values or success indicators. It does not. For a mutation tool, critical context like whether it returns updated entity or just confirmation is missing. Given the simplicity (3 params), more completeness is expected.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only mentions caseFileId and dossierId as prerequisites but does not explain their role or the visibility parameter values. The enum values are left entirely to the schema, requiring the agent to infer semantics without additional guidance.

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 clearly states the tool updates visibility of a certified dossier, with verb 'updates' and resource 'visibility'. It distinguishes from siblings by being specific to visibility changes. However, it oversimplifies the possible values (public/private vs. the actual enum: ACCESSIBLE, PENDING_RECALL, RECALLED), which could cause slight confusion.

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 lists prerequisites ('dossier_certify status, caseFileId, dossierId'), giving some context on when to use. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like dossier_update, nor does it provide 'when not to use' or alternative tools.

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