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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the request is recorded verbatim, Deckly checks the written figures against it, and that verification surfaces in the document's chat. It does not say what happens on a failed check or what the response contains, keeping it below a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is pure filler, but the parenthetical and the phrase 'with what the person asked in their own words' are convoluted and could be stated more crisply. The final sentence about design tools is useful but tacked on without connecting to the request flow.

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 non-read-only, two-required-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers request semantics and the verification behavior adequately. It still leaves the document_id contract, failure modes (missing or unowned document), and the relationship to finish_work unexplained.

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% for both required parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the substance of `request` (the person's own words, including facts, figures and names they supplied), but `document_id` is only inferable from its name and no format or sourcing guidance is given.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Open an existing document for editing'), which is clear enough to act on. It does not name the sibling that handles read-only retrieval (get_document) or list_documents, so the boundary with nearby tools is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: you open a document when you intend to edit it, and 'the document's design tools work on it while it is open' hints at the editing session. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of a closing counterpart such as finish_work, and no statement of what to do instead if the user only wants to read the document.

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