set_panel_visibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the modes and default values, but does not disclose if changes persist, require permissions, or trigger UI updates. The 'mirrors Settings' hint implies persistence, but more explicit behavioral details 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 two sentences, no wasted words. It states the purpose, lists modes with definitions, and provides defaults. Perfectly concise and 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?

Given no output schema and simple enum parameters, the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, all parameter options with effects, and relevant settings context. No information is missing for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, yet the description adds significant meaning: it defines each mode's behavior ('pins it open', 'reveals it when cursor is near', 'never shows it') and provides default values per panel. This goes well beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: configuring the visibility behavior of bottom panel rows in the main app. It lists the three modes and three panel rows, making the function unambiguous. Among sibling tools, there are no similar visibility configuration tools, so it is well-differentiated.

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 explicitly mentions the tool mirrors a Settings menu, providing context for when to use it programmatically. It does not state when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to decide.

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