Set a closure's stack-trace visibility

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

The annotations declare idempotentHint=false, but the description asserts 'idempotency=idempotent-write', a direct contradiction of the structured metadata. Although the text otherwise adds useful context (confirmation-gated, requires explicit-mutation-approval, produces operation-receipt), the conflict with annotations is disqualifying.

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?

Front-loading the mutation warning is good, but the text is templated and redundant, repeating 'writes live game/client state' twice and padding with Phase/cost metadata that adds little for the caller.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers safety, prerequisites, a verification path, and the produced operation-receipt, which is close to sufficient. The idempotency mismatch is a completeness defect rather than a missing detail.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults and the confirm gate. The prose signature repeats types and optionality but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what is already structured.

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 states a specific verb and resource (alter runtime stack/debug visibility for a function) and immediately distinguishes it from sibling reads such as is-function-hooked and list-hooks by declaring it a live-state write. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context: use it to hide stack traces, it is confirmation-gated, and it 'should be restored with hidden=false after use', plus a verification sibling (is-function-hooked). It stops short of naming when a different tool is preferable beyond the verify step.

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