open_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important behavior: without res_id and with view_type='form', it opens a blank new record, and it hints that menu defaults may be lost. But it does not explicitly state that this is a UI navigation action, that it does not save data, or whether any side effects occur before save, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs the edge-case behavior and a usage tip into minimal text. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation.

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 tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main call patterns (form, list, kanban, blank new record) and gives a sibling preference. It does not explain exact model string format or what the output schema contains, but the output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that the description is largely sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains that 'res_id' identifies the specific record and that 'view_type' can be 'form', 'list', or 'kanban' (implied for form, explicit for list/kanban). It also ties the absence of res_id and view_type='form' to the blank-record behavior, adding real meaning beyond the raw parameter names.

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 states a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('record' or 'model's list/kanban view'), and clearly names the accepted view types. It distinguishes itself from siblings like open_menu and open_url by focusing on model+id-based navigation, so an agent can tell exactly what it does.

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 explicitly gives an alternative for creating new records: 'Prefer click_button("new") from a list to keep the menu's defaults.' It also explains the default behavior when res_id is omitted, which tells the agent when the blank-record path applies. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other navigation siblings like open_menu or open_url, so it misses a small amount of routing guidance.

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