body_set_visibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses atomic rollback behavior, the meaning of is_visible versus light_bulb, hidden-component inheritance, error conditions, and the return shape. That is substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then layers atomicity, effective visibility, errors, return shape, and an example. It is appropriately sized and every section adds useful information.

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?

Although there is no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by documenting the result object, error behavior, atomicity, and effective visibility semantics. An agent has enough information to call it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds important parameter interplay: at least one of visible or opacity must be supplied, and opacity must be within 0..1. It also clarifies that visible controls the light bulb while opacity controls transparency.

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 specific verb and resource: show/hide bodies via light bulb and/or set opacity. It is distinct in meaning, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby body/appearance tools, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 by the stated capability, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related tools such as appearance_set_color or body tools. The description gives operational behavior, not selection guidance.

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