Update Page Visibility

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

Annotations already indicate that the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), not destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent. The description adds the context of 'public sites', which is useful but does not elaborate on effects (e.g., whether it overrides other visibility settings). Given annotations carry the safety profile, a score of 3 reflects adequate but shallow additional information.

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 a single sentence of 8 words, extremely concise. It contains no fluff and is front-loaded with the action. While it could include a bit more context (e.g., required parameters), it earns a 4 for being efficient and to the point.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is too brief. It does not summarize the required inputs (collection ID, document ID, page number), mention what the tool returns (e.g., success/error), or explain the optional 'hideOnSites' parameter. This leaves the agent without essential context for correct invocation.

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?

All 6 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add extra meaning. However, the description does not clarify the relationship between the two boolean parameters ('hide' and 'hideOnSites') or explain that required parameters (collId, id, page) identify the specific page. The schema does this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'a page' with the attribute 'hidden on public sites'. This distinguishes it from sibling page update tools that deal with transcript status, locks, or other metadata.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no information about prerequisites, such as requiring specific permissions, or when not to use it (e.g., if another tool handles collection-level hiding). This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to decide.

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