sd_open_graph

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

The description mentions opening a graph in the editor, which implies a UI action. However, it does not disclose whether it changes the active graph, requires a package to be open, or has side effects. Annotations are all false, so no contradictions, but more behavioral context would improve transparency.

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 sentence of 10 words, conveying the essential purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested parameter, UI action, existing output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns or how it affects the editor state. However, the presence of an output schema partially reduces the need to explain return values. Still, a more complete description would include context like 'This tool opens the graph in the Designer editor and returns a confirmation or error.'

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 'graph' is a complex nested object (GraphRef) with three properties (graph_type, package_url, graph_identifier), but the description does not explain what these properties mean or how to construct the reference. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add any semantic value beyond the raw 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 action ('Open'), the resource ('one explicit graph resource'), and the context ('in Designer's editor'). This verb+resource+scope combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like sd_get_graph_snapshot or sd_list_graph_nodes.

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 implies the tool is used when you want to view or edit a specific graph in the editor, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. With many sibling tools, this would benefit from mentioning, e.g., 'Use this to navigate to a graph; for reading graph data without opening, use sd_get_graph_snapshot.'

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