set_viewport_visibility

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait: the effect is limited to the editor viewport and persisted enabled values are untouched. Annotations already communicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds meaningful context about what state is and is not affected. It does not contradict any 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 with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Hide or show entities'), then states the scoping constraint ('only in the editor viewport') and the critical non-effect ('without changing their persisted enabled values'). Every part earns its place.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the tool does, where it applies, and what it does not persist. It could briefly mention that visibility changes are editor-session only, but the phrase 'only in the editor viewport' already implies this. The tool is simple enough that nothing essential is missing.

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?

Given the schema has 0% description coverage, the description helps by mapping 'entities' to the ids parameter and 'Hide or show' to the hidden boolean parameter. It does not explicitly state that hidden=true means hide and hidden=false means show, but the connection is straightforward. This adds meaning beyond the bare property names.

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 a specific verb-resource pair, 'Hide or show entities', and clearly scopes the effect to the editor viewport. It also differentiates itself from persisted entity changes by stating that enabled values are not changed, distinguishing it from sibling tools like modify_entities or set_viewport_state.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for viewport-only visibility changes and excludes persisted enabled-value changes. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as query_viewport_visibility for reading visibility or modify_entities for persisted changes, but the context and scoping are sufficient for an agent to choose correctly.

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