ipt_set_visibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it 'writes to the IPT' and that the change applies at the next publication, which is useful. However, it omits the critical requirement that the 'confirm' parameter must be true to actually perform the action—a significant behavioral detail that could lead to unexpected no-ops. It also does not mention reversibility or any side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word serves a purpose, and it is easy to scan. There is no padding or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the confirmation requirement, which is essential for correct invocation, and offers no usage guidance or alternatives. While it does note the timing of the change, an agent would still need to open the schema to discover the confirm flag, making the description insufficient for safe and correct use.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions: shortname, visibility (enum), and confirm with its own description. Since schema description coverage is 67% and the schema already documents all three parameters, the description adds little extra meaning. The description only hints at the visibility parameter but does not elaborate on the others beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Request public/private visibility' with the resource shortname. It specifies the resource and the visibility change, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, such as ipt_set_basic_metadata or ipt_set_settings, though the action is distinct enough on its own.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only contextual note is that the change applies at the next publication, but that is a timing detail, not usage guidance. An agent has no information about when this tool should be preferred over others.

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