rhino_set_layer_visibility

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., that the layer must exist, or that other layer properties are unaffected). It does not contradict annotations, but it contributes nothing beyond the action itself.

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?

A single sentence with no waste. The essential information is front-loaded and perfectly concise.

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?

The tool is a simple setter, and the output schema exists, so return type is not a gap. However, the description does not mention that the layer must exist or that the operation is idempotent (though annotations cover the latter). It lacks prerequisites but is otherwise sufficient for a straightforward operation.

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% from the tool description, which says nothing about the parameters 'name' and 'visible'. The schema descriptions ('Layer name', 'Visibility state') are minimal but self-explanatory. The description does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from the schema alone.

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 'Show or hide a layer' clearly states the verb (show/hide) and the resource (layer). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rhino_set_layer_color or rhino_set_current_layer by focusing solely on visibility. No ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it note exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no guidance on configuring parameters or when it might be inappropriate. Minimal but not misleading.

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