hide_objects

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it modifies the scene. The description adds a critical behavioral detail: hidden objects still render unless explicitly set non-renderable. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the exact effect, which is valuable for decision-making. It does not disclose other side effects like undo behavior, but the essential nuance is covered.

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 concise sentences, bilingual, and front-loads the action. It avoids fluff and directly communicates the purpose and the rendering caveat. The structure is efficient, though the bilingual repetition slightly inflates length without adding information, but it is not excessive.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description provides the key context: what it does, the selection fallback, and the rendering behavior. It does not specify return values, but since there is no output schema and this is a void-like operation, that is not a significant gap. The presence of destructiveHint covers the mutating nature. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema description fully covers the single parameter: '对象名称列表；省略则用当前选择。 | Object names; omit for the selection.' The tool description repeats this ('or the current selection') without adding new details such as format, case sensitivity, or ordering. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 action: 'Hide the given objects (or the current selection).' It identifies the resource (objects) and the operation (hide). It also clarifies a key nuance—hidden objects still render unless set non-renderable—which distinguishes it from delete_objects and aligns with unhide_objects as the inverse. The sibling set confirms it is unique in purpose.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unhide_objects or delete_objects. It does imply usage context by mentioning the current selection fallback, but it does not state exclusions or recommend conditions. For an agent, the name is self-explanatory, but explicit routing would improve clarity.

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