studio_open_place

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about whether opening replaces the current session, whether a bridge/Studio instance must be active, whether the operation is destructive to unsaved work, or what happens on failure—all critical for an open/load operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and both input modes stated up front and no filler. It is efficient, though slightly terse for a tool whose structured metadata is this sparse.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is the only source of truth, and it leaves the tool's lifecycle behavior (launch vs. attach, session replacement, error conditions) entirely undocumented. An agent can guess the input shape but not the consequences of calling it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and three bare numeric/string params, the description compensates by mapping placeFile to a local .rbxl/.rbxlx file and placeId+universeId to a published place, and implies mutual exclusivity via 'either…or'. It still omits requiredness (schema says none required), what happens if both forms are supplied, and any ID format expectations.

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 ('a place in Roblox Studio'), and distinguishes two supported input modes (local file vs published placeId+universeId). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like studio_launch or the save_place/studio_close pair, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by naming the two input shapes, giving an agent a rough sense of when this applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over studio_launch, whether Studio must already be running, or how it interacts with an already-open place.

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