layer_setVisibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core effect (show or hide) but does not disclose potential side effects, such as impact on child layers, return values, or error handling. The basic mutating behavior is clear, though some additional context would improve transparency.

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, direct sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function. It contains no redundant information or filler, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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 simple setter with two scalar parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. It doesn't explain return values or failure scenarios, but these are not critical for such an operation. A note on usage context relative to sibling tools would improve completeness, but the current description is sufficient for selection and 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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (layerId and visible), achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 for full schema coverage 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 uses the specific verb 'Show or hide' and identifies the resource as 'a layer in the MOHO scene'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling layer tools like layer_setOpacity, layer_setName, and layer_setTransform, making the tool's unique purpose obvious.

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 regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives such as layer_selectLayer or layer_setTransform. There is no mention of prerequisites or context in which hiding/showing is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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