ecamm_set_overlay

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds a genuinely actionable behavioral fact: show/hide are idempotent, which changes how an agent should retry. It does not disclose what happens for an unknown overlay name or what toggle does on repeated calls, and no output schema exists to cover the return value.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the one non-obvious behavioral caveat. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter setter with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this is nearly complete: purpose, scope, accepted identifier forms, and idempotency are all covered. The only meaningful gap is failure behavior for a missing or ambiguous overlay.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'By name or id' usefully clarifies that the opaque string 'overlay' parameter accepts either identifier form, and 'current scene' explains the absence of a scene parameter; however, nothing is said about case sensitivity, ambiguity resolution, or how 'state' interacts with the current overlay state.

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 names a specific verb set (show, hide, toggle) and resource (overlay) with scope limited to the current scene, so an agent can tell it apart from ecamm_list_overlays (enumeration) or ecamm_comment_overlay. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'in the current scene' signals that no scene parameter is needed and that the scene must already be active, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named for the case where the scene is not current.

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