Set Omarchy bar transparency (verified)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation writes to shell.json ('then verify shell.json') and warns against blind toggling, which indicates a mutating action with a verification step. However, it does not detail side effects, reversibility, or failure modes, leaving some ambiguity for a write operation.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core action ('Set bar transparency explicitly') and adds one necessary instruction (verify). 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 single-boolean-parameter tool with a mutating operation, the description provides essential context (explicit setting, verification) but lacks details like return values (no output schema), prerequisite conditions, or what 'transparent' precisely changes. It is minimally complete but could be enhanced with specifics about the effect on the bar.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'transparent' in the context of setting transparency explicitly, which hints at the parameter's meaning but does not explicitly define true/false semantics (e.g., true = transparent, false = opaque). The parameter name is self-explanatory, so this is adequate but not thorough.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Set bar transparency explicitly', which is specific and not a tautology. It also adds a secondary instruction to verify shell.json, clarifying the operation's scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bar_visibility_set or bar_position_set, though the resource (transparency) is distinct.

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 phrase 'never toggle blindly' gives a warning about usage style (set explicitly rather than toggle), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. It implies the tool is for setting absolute transparency rather than toggling, which is helpful, but lacks concrete context on when to choose this tool over others.

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