apps_script_open_editor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it opens in the system browser, which is useful context, but doesn't disclose potential side effects like requiring authentication or that it launches an external application. It doesn't contradict the annotations, but adds minimal behavioral depth beyond them.

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, compact sentence with no wasted words. The core action and target are front-loaded, making it highly scannable.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't clarify that opening is a read-only side effect (despite readOnlyHint=false) or that it requires an existing project ID. The agent can likely operate correctly, but additional context about the action's implications would improve completeness.

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 single parameter scriptId has zero schema description coverage, and the description does not explicitly explain that scriptId is the project ID. While it's inferable from 'Open an Apps Script project', the description fails to directly map the parameter to the resource, leaving the agent to rely on the name and context. This is insufficient compensation for the 0% coverage.

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 states a specific action (Open) and resource (Apps Script project) with a destination (system browser). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_project or run_function, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The verb and object are unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's the appropriate choice for launching the editor UI, nor does it exclude use cases like retrieving project content. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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