Set Micro project visibility

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

Annotations already convey mutation, destructiveness, idempotency, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context by explaining what 'private' actually means (authenticated app access plus explicit private grants), going beyond the enum values in the schema. It does not contradict 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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and uses precise, meaningful language. Every phrase earns its place, and the distinction between public and private is communicated without redundancy.

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 annotations, schema details, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the semantic effect of both visibility states and relies on structured fields for confirmation and path. It could add a caution about the destructive annotation's implications, but this is partially covered by the 'confirm' parameter and the destructiveHint.

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 67%, and the description compensates by clarifying the meaning of the central 'visibility' enum: public means the linked site is accessible, private means authenticated access with grants. The optional 'path' and required 'confirm' parameters are already described in the schema, so the description adds meaningful value where it is needed most.

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 names a specific verb ('Make') and resource ('linked site') and clearly defines what 'public' and 'private' mean. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like micro_private_grants, but the core action 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?

The description implies the tool is used when changing the visibility of a linked Micro project, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over related tools such as micro_private_grants or micro_domain_* tools. There are no stated alternatives or exclusions.

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