app-file_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavior that force is needed when the file is dirty, which is a key side effect. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., missing file) or whether the operation replaces the current scene, leaving some behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 that is front-loaded with the primary action and then adds the crucial condition. There is no redundant text, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 has only two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and the only notable edge case (dirty file). It could be more complete by mentioning error handling, but for the simplicity of the operation, it is adequately informative without being verbose.

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 schema already provides titles for path and force, but the description adds meaning by specifying 'absolute path' and clarifying that force is required when the file is dirty, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'Discard unsaved changes'. This adds valuable context to parameter usage.

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 tool opens an existing .blend file by absolute path, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like app-file_new and app-file_revert by focusing on opening existing files.

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?

It provides a usage condition (force required if file is dirty) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as app-file_revert or app-file_new. The when-to-use context is implied rather than explicitly stated, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this tool over other file operations.

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