set_visibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a genuinely useful trait — the publication link is unchanged, i.e. the operation is reversible and non-destructive to the resource. However it says nothing about the owner-token authorization requirement, what happens for non-public types, or what the tool returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the key behavioral caveat ('Link unchanged') packed into the second. No waste.

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 5-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core effect and link stability, while the schema covers parameter constraints. It still leaves the agent without guidance on permissions/owner token and on failure modes for non-listable types, which the description should have carried given the absence of annotations.

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 100%, so all five parameters (including the type enum constraint and ownerToken default) are already documented. The description only indirectly reinforces the 'listed' boolean and the public-type restriction, adding little beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

Uses specific verbs (hide/show) on a specific resource (a public publication's listing in gallery & search), which is distinguishable from siblings like delete_resource or update_html. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 use case (toggling gallery/search visibility) is implied clearly, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling that handles permanent removal instead (delete_resource).

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