set_show_metrics

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the core toggle behavior and the visible suppression effect, which is the essential trait. However, it leaves unstated whether the setting persists across responses, which parameter wins if both status and enabled are passed together, and what happens when neither is supplied — gaps an agent would want for a state-setting tool.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second carries the single operational instruction an agent needs. Every word earns its place.

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 toggle with a fully documented schema and no nesting, the description is nearly complete: it states the function, the affected UI element, and the suppression path. The minor omissions — persistence scope and parameter precedence — prevent a perfect score, but an agent can invoke this tool correctly with very high confidence.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description does add a genuinely useful insight beyond the schema — that enabled:false and status:'off' are interchangeable ways to suppress the footer — which clarifies the relationship between the two parameters. This is helpful but modest, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific action (enable or disable) on a specific resource (the end-of-response metrics badge footer) and enumerates exactly which metrics are affected: 'Complexity', 'Mode', 'Accuracy'. This avoids ambiguity and cleanly separates it from sibling config tools such as set_response_mode and set_relevance_sensitivity, which target different settings.

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 usage context is explicit and self-contained: invoke this tool when the end-of-response metrics footer needs to be toggled on or off. It stops short of naming alternatives or giving explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the precisely named resource and action make the intended use unambiguous against its set_* siblings.

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