set_compartment_visibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool shows or hides a compartment, which implies a mutation, but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens to existing visibility states. The phrase 'Phase B stub' does indicate that the tool is not fully implemented, which is a transparency signal, but it does not explain the actual behavioral outcomes beyond the basic action.

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 short, consisting of a single sentence plus a stub note. It is front-loaded with the primary action, which is good, and there is no fluff. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices informative content. While concise, it does not earn a higher score because it omits crucial details that would make it useful.

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?

Given the tool has 4 required parameters with no schema coverage, no annotations, and no description of the output or return value, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to fill parameters correctly, what to expect as a result, or any error conditions. The 'Phase B stub' note acknowledges incompleteness, but the description itself fails to provide enough context for a robust call.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. However, the description does not mention any of the four parameters (diagram_id, element_id, compartment, visible). It only gives a vague sense that 'compartment' is the thing being shown/hidden, but provides no details about what values are valid, how to specify the symbol, or how the boolean 'visible' works. This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 the action: 'Show or hide a compartment on a symbol.' It identifies the specific resource (compartment) and the verb (show/hide), which distinguishes it from other set_* tools that modify properties like type or value. However, it does not mention the context of diagram and element explicitly, but the schema provides those parameters. It is not a tautology and gives a specific operation, though it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like set_symbol_style or move_symbol.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions for usage, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the action is self-explanatory, an agent has no information about when this is the right tool compared to other symbol-related tools. There is no mention of alternative tools or when not to use it.

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