fusion_open_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses a key behavior: 'preserve other open documents' explicitly states it does not close others. The caution about reinspecting document identity hints at potential state changes. Yet it omits details like side effects, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only vs mutating, leaving gaps for an agent relying solely on the description.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a concise caution. No wasted words, and the structure leads with the most critical information.

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 file-opening operation with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves essential context missing: it does not specify what the tool returns, how operation_id is used, what expected_document_id does in practice, or error conditions. The 'Reinspect returned document identity' hint raises more questions than it answers, making the tool not fully usable from the description alone.

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 the 3 parameters. The description only implicitly references 'local F3D/F3Z archive' (likely the path format) and 'document identity' (hinting at expected_document_id), but provides no explanation for operation_id or how the parameters interact. This is insufficient compensation for the total absence of parameter docs in the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Open' with a specific resource ('a local F3D/F3Z archive') and the context ('in a new document; preserve other open documents'), distinguishing it from siblings like fusion_new_design (create) and fusion_activate_document (activate). It is immediately clear what this tool does.

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 description provides context for use: 'preserve other open documents' implies this tool is for opening an archive without disrupting existing work, and 'Reinspect returned document identity before editing' gives a caution for subsequent actions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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