Control an overlay

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and may accept unexpected parameters (openWorldHint=true). The description adds no additional behavioral notes about side effects, permissions, or error handling, so it provides minimal extra transparency beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core actions, and every sentence contributes meaningful information. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 complexity (multiple actions, 8 parameters) and absence of an output schema, the description covers the main use cases and resolves parameter ambiguity. However, it lacks examples or clarification of terms like 'content' or 'layer', leaving some details open for interpretation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by clarifying that the 'target' parameter's meaning depends on the action (overlay name vs. layer id). This resolution of ambiguity goes beyond the schema, earning a score above baseline.

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's purpose: controlling overlays by showing/hiding, moving, resizing, or setting content. It uses specific verbs and clarifies the resource (overlay/layer), distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with other domains like queues or song requests.

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 implies usage for overlay/layer control but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer based on context.

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