toggle_track_visibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly explains the behavior (toggles output visibility via the eye icon), scopes it to the specified sequence, and clarifies what it is NOT (track targeting). Minor gap: 'toggles' could imply inverting rather than setting the explicit visible boolean, but the schema resolves this.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the critical disambiguation from set_target_track is placed at the end without bloating the description.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the necessary behavioral, scoping, and alternative-tool context. It could mention error behavior or whether hidden tracks affect indexing, but the schema covers parameter semantics and the description sufficiently orients an agent.

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 description doesn't need to repeat parameter definitions. It does add useful semantic context around the sequenceId parameter (the sequence does not have to be active) and clarifies that trackIndex refers to the video track's output, but this is modest added value over the 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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Shows or hides') and resource ('a video track ... in the specified sequence'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from set_target_track by clarifying this is track OUTPUT (eye icon) rather than track targeting. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from closely related sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly notes that the sequence need not be active, which is a key usage condition. It also provides a direct alternative ('use set_target_track for the V1/A1 patch buttons'), telling the agent when not to use this tool and which sibling to choose instead.

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