ifcx_set_visibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool sets visibility (implying mutation) but does not explain side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what 'USD-style' entails. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose.

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 the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks explanations of what constitutes a 'node', what 'USD-style' means, and what the return value or side effects are, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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%, meaning the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. The description does not mention any parameters (sessionId, path, visible), leaving the agent to guess their roles. The tool name gives a clue, but explicit semantics are missing.

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 tool sets USD-style visibility on a node, with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('visibility on a node'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like ifcx_toggle_layer which may also affect visibility, and the title repeats the name without additional clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use conditions. For example, it doesn't clarify how this differs from ifcx_toggle_layer or ifcx_set_transform, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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