hide_overlay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action (hiding) without describing effects on subsequent overlays, whether the operation is reversible by show_overlay, persistence across sessions, or side effects on related segments. Very thin behavioral coverage for a mutating UI tool.

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 extremely short (one phrase), which is efficient, but this is under-specification rather than true conciseness. It front-loads the purpose but at the cost of any meaningful information. Borderline between a 2 and 3; the brevity is at least not bloated.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and a single undocumented parameter, this description is completely inadequate. Comparable to a similar tool hide (without the context of having 18 siblings to differentiate from), it provides almost nothing for an agent to correctly select and invoke it.

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 0% and the description does not mention overlayId at all. The single required parameter gets no added meaning—no guidance on how to obtain a valid overlayId, its format, or what values are valid. The description adds nothing beyond the raw schema.

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 'Hide an overlay' has a verb+resource but no detail about what kind of overlay, what hiding entails visually, or how this differs from the sibling tool show_overlay (presumably the inverse). It's minimally clear but lacks any specificity about scope or behavior.

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 on when to hide an overlay, what state prerequisites exist (e.g., must the overlay be currently visible?), or how it relates to alternatives like switch_segment, show_overlay, or trigger_effect. The description provides zero usage context.

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