toggle_ui

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

The description frames the tool as a visibility toggle: 'Show or hide' and 'make the Customaise interface visible or dismiss it.' A toggle is inherently non-idempotent because the effect of a second call depends on the current state. This directly contradicts the annotation idempotentHint: true, which tells the agent that repeated identical calls produce the same outcome. An agent could call the tool twice expecting no change and end up reversing the UI state.

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 at two sentences and front-loads the core action. There is slight redundancy between 'Show or hide' and 'make the Customaise interface visible or dismiss it,' which prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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 small tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it acts on, where it acts, when to use it, and the optional panel behavior. It does not explain return values, but that is not critical for a UI toggle tool. The main contextual gap is the misleading idempotence annotation, already captured in behavioral transparency.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented: panel has its allowed values and tabId defaults to the active tab. The description mostly restates this ('active tab', 'Optionally specify which panel to open') without adding new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 a concrete action ('Show or hide') on a specific resource ('the Customaise UI overlay on the active tab'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like toggle_script by making clear it controls the UI overlay, not a script. The mention that AI agents cannot click the extension icon directly adds useful purpose context.

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 gives an explicit use case: make the Customaise interface visible or dismiss it, including why this tool is necessary for AI agents. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases or explicitly contrast with alternatives such as toggle_script, so it falls just short of a 5.

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