design_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, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the change is reversible, whether hidden layers still affect export or render, or what is returned. 'Show or hide' implies mutation with no further safety or side-effect context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the what. Missing are the outcome (does it return the new visibility state?), error behavior for an invalid layerId, and how it relates to the lock/update siblings – enough gaps to keep it at minimum-viable completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself explains the toggle default for 'visible' and the selected-sketch default for 'sketchId'. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair (show/hide) and resource (design layer), so the agent immediately knows the operation is a visibility flip rather than a structural edit. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like design_update_layer or design_lock_layer, which could plausibly also affect layer state.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over design_update_layer, design_lock_layer, or design_list_layers, and no prerequisites (e.g. a layer must exist, a sketch must be open). The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the narrow visibility-only route.

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