plasticity_open_document

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the sequencing behavior: the current document is first written to a backup file before the open occurs, which tells the agent this is a safe-ish destructive operation with a recovery path.

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 efficient sentence with the backup behavior front-loaded after the primary action. No filler, though it is terse given the tool's complexity.

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?

Annotations cover the destructive profile and the description covers the backup sequencing, so the safety/behavior picture is reasonably complete. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no output schema, the meaning of 'revision' and 'intent' and the failure semantics remain unaddressed.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it: 'path' and 'backupPath' are only faintly implied, and 'revision' and 'intent' are entirely unexplained. An agent cannot determine formats or constraints from the description.

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 (.plasticity document), and adds the backup side effect. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't differentiate itself from other document/file-level siblings such as save_copy or import_step.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites stated (e.g. that a document must be loaded first for the backup to have meaning), and no mention of what happens if the open fails.

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