set_knowledge_agent_visibility

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully explains what each visibility level exposes (e.g. 'public: anyone with the agent's link, without signing in'). However, it never states that changing visibility can revoke existing users' access or that the change is a security-sensitive mutation, which is the key behavioral fact the destructive hint implies.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by enum semantics and an Args block, with no filler. Minor redundancy in restating the visibility values twice (prose and Args), but the repetition is compact.

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?

An output schema exists and the destructive mutation is well framed by the audience definitions, so the description is largely sufficient. It could say more about reversibility and the effect on current members, but nothing needed to pick the right value is missing.

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 carries the full burden and does: it defines all three parameters, gives the meaning of each enum value, and specifies that community_id is required for 'community' and should come from list_my_communities. That is meaningfully more than the raw schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: setting who can access ('ask') a Knowledge Agent you own. This is clearly distinct from update_knowledge_agent and the create/list siblings, so an agent can route here without opening the schema.

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 four visibility values are each defined in terms of audience, which is the real decision the caller faces, and list_my_communities is named as the source for community_id. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with update_knowledge_agent or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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