hide_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does provide a non-obvious side effect: hidden objects are skipped by render_preview auto framing. It does not mention lifecycle details like reversibility via show_object, but the most relevant behavioral consequence is disclosed and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first states the action and the second adds a valuable consequence; every word earns its place.

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 state-change tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and a key downstream effect. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit note that hiding is reversible via show_object, but nothing essential is missing for invoking 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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents the render and viewport booleans with defaults and descriptions. The only undocumented parameter, name, is self-explanatory from the tool name, so the 67% schema coverage is sufficient and the description does not need to compensate.

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 uses a clear verb and resource ('Hide an object') and adds a meaningful behavioral detail: hidden objects are skipped by render_preview's auto framing. This distinguishes it from delete_object and implies the inverse relationship with show_object, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 statement about render_preview's auto framing gives an implied use case: hide an object when it should remain in the scene but be excluded from auto framing. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives like show_object or delete_object, or guidance about when not to use this tool.

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