floater_open

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, meaning this can mutate viewer state in unpredictable ways, but the description reads like a benign open-and-check. It never discloses what is destroyed or why the operation is destructive, so it undersells the risk the annotations flag.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though bundling the visibility check into the same sentence without explaining its relevance is slightly muddy.

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?

No output schema and no annotation-adjacent explanation; for a destructive, open-world tool with one fully undocumented parameter, the description leaves an agent unable to predict effects, return values, or failure modes.

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%, so the sole parameter 'name' is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'registered viewer floater' hints that name refers to a registered floater identifier, but format, source of valid names, and matching rules are absent.

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?

States a specific verb (Open) and resource (registered viewer floater), and adds a secondary effect (visibility check). It doesn't differentiate itself from sibling 'open'-style tools like local_mesh_open, mesh_upload_open, or floater_list, and the term 'floater' is left unexplained.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus floater_list or the other open tools, no prerequisites (must the floater be registered/available?), and no mention of what happens if the name isn't found.

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