Set Visibility

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: the override is persistent but may be re-hidden by the next save_document, and users must pass visibility_hygiene=False to lock it in. This goes well beyond what readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already communicate.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds necessary context: default behavior, when to override, and the important save_document caveat. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, side effects, and follow-up actions. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 carries the burden, and it mostly does. It makes clear that the tool sets a visibility flag, and the example implies visible=true keeps a primitive visible. However, 'handle' is not explicitly defined as an object handle or linked to how it is obtained, which is a small gap.

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 action ('Override an object's persistent Visibility flag') and differentiates it from the default save_document behavior that auto-hides producer-inputs. It is specific about the resource and the effect, and the example usage makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool, gives a concrete example (keeping a reference primitive visible next to a derived part), and warns about the interaction with save_document, including how to preserve the override with visibility_hygiene=False. This is strong usage guidance with no ambiguity.

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