open_schematic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: blocks are loaded 'as they are (no roles)', i.e. no semantic role assignment is applied. It says nothing about whether an existing design is overwritten, what happens on a bad/missing path, or whether session state changes.

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 compact sentence with the verb and the file format front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The trailing parenthetical is slightly awkward but earns its place by conveying the no-roles behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and this is a simple two-parameter ingestion tool. Still, for a state-changing open operation with zero annotation coverage, the missing treatment of the 'design' parameter and of failure/overwrite behavior leaves real gaps.

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 both parameters are bare. 'path' is inferable, but the optional 'design' argument is entirely unexplained — the description's 'as a design' is ambiguous about whether it names the target design or just describes the result. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Opens') plus specific resource type ('.litematic file') and the outcome ('as a design to change'), which clearly distinguishes it from new_design or list_designs without naming them. A reader immediately knows this ingests an external file into the design workspace.

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 phrase 'as a design to change' hints at the editing workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (does the file need to exist on disk? what paths are valid?), and no comparison against new_design or list_designs. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

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