set_playlist_item_visibility

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is not read-only, is idempotent, and is destructive. The description adds a meaningful caution that the item is not removed, and instructs inspect/verify to handle side effects. It does not describe permissions, rate limits, or the exact nature of destructive changes, but with annotations present this is acceptable.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the procedural guidance second. No wasted words, and the key clarification 'without removing it' is placed at the end of the sentence. It could mention the parameter effect more explicitly, but the structure is efficient.

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 2-parameter, no-output-scale tool, the description covers the essential workflow: inspect, set visibility, verify. It does not elaborate on error conditions or access requirements, but given the annotation and schema, completeness is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'visible' controls show/hide and 'item_id' refers to an existing playlist item, and the instruction to inspect the playlist implies how to obtain the ID. Yet it does not detail parameter formats, validation, or relationships, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('show or hide'), a specific resource ('an existing playlist item'), and explicitly disambiguates from siblings by adding 'without removing it'. This distinguishes it from remove_playlist_item and reorder_playlist_items, making the purpose 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 provides clear procedural guidance: 'Inspect the playlist first and verify visibility afterward.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (ensure item exists, verify after) and implicitly suggests using list_playlist_items for inspection. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool over others.

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