nx_open_part

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it says nothing about what happens if a part is already open, whether the previous part is closed, whether this is a session-mutating operation, or what errors occur for a missing/invalid path. Only the vague 'configured workspace' phrase hints at resolution behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the core action and its scope lead immediately. It is terse rather than padded, though the brevity is also where its omissions come from.

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, but for a state-changing session operation with no annotations the description leaves out all preconditions (an active NX session), the already-open case, and path resolution rules. Given the surrounding family of CAD-operation tools that assume an open part, these gaps matter.

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 'path' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'From the configured workspace' is a weak hint that the path may be workspace-relative, but it never states whether absolute paths are accepted, what format/extension is expected, or whether the part must already exist.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('a part') and scopes it to the configured workspace, which naturally separates it from nx_create_part, nx_save_part, and nx_close_part. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation comes from the verb alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus nx_create_part or nx_status, and no indication that opening a part is a prerequisite for the modeling siblings (extrude, hole, sketch, etc.). A reader can infer the intent, but the description supplies no explicit usage guidance or exclusions.

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