toggle_track_visibility

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful detail: the operation works on non-active sequences, it affects the eye-icon output, and it is explicitly not track targeting. It does not describe failure behavior, but the core behavioral traits are stated clearly.

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 no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important distinctions are placed immediately after the core definition. Every sentence contributes 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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with fully documented schema fields and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers what the tool does, the non-active-sequence caveat, and the critical alternative tool. An agent should be able to call this tool correctly without further context.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters, but the description adds value by clarifying that 'visible' refers to the eye-icon output, that sequenceId can be a non-active sequence, and that this is output visibility rather than V1/A1 targeting. This helps the agent choose the correct parameter meaning.

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 verb and resource: it shows or hides a video track's output in a specified sequence. It also explicitly distinguishes this from set_target_track, which controls V1/A1 patch targeting, so an agent can differentiate the tools without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explains when to use the tool and even when not to: the sequence need not be active, and this is specifically track output rather than track targeting. It names the sibling tool set_target_track as the correct alternative for patch buttons, which is clear routing.

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