Open In Source

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world operation. The description adds some behavioral context by noting that it confirms the item is showing after opening, but it omits side effects such as whether it replaces the current Source Monitor clip or any permission requirements.

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 states the action, destination, and outcome without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety and mutation semantics, the description conveys purpose and post-condition adequately. It could mention whether an existing Source Monitor clip is replaced, but the core information needed to invoke it is present.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents item_id as a node ID or name. The description restates 'project item' but adds no syntax, format, or alternate identifier details beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (Open) and resource (project item), plus the destination (Source Monitor) and purpose (preview and trimming). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like open_project, get_clip_at_position, and other source-monitor tools.

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?

Gives clear context for use: previewing and trimming a project item in the Source Monitor. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, such as routing to insert_from_source for timeline placement, so it stops short of a 5.

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