set_visibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the missing 'why' — the operation returns each object's prior state so the change can be reverted, which is the key safety fact for a mutating tool. It stops short of stating permissions, batching limits, or what happens to IDs that don't exist.

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 parameter mapping before the revert behavior. No filler or repetition of the tool name beyond what is needed to define it.

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 two-parameter mutating tool with an output schema and clear annotations this covers the essentials, but the description is in French while the tool names and parameters are English, and the term 'pièces' is never tied to the 'object' vocabulary used by siblings like list_objects and get_scene_tree, leaving a small but real gap in matching mental models.

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 must carry the meaning, and it does: 'visible=true' is explicitly tied to the boolean parameter and object_ids is sourced from list_objects. Both of the two parameters gain semantics the bare schema lacks.

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 pair with the boolean mapping inline (montre = visible=true, masque = visible=false) against a named resource (pièces). The pointer to list_objects for obtaining IDs makes the scope concrete. It does not contrast with any sibling, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: call it to show or hide parts, and fetch IDs via list_objects first. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative route, and no note on whether visibility is per-scene, per-camera or global, so the agent must infer the context.

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