manage_lasalscreen

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals that close is destructive, and the description adds meaningful context by saying close releases .lpr file locks and should precede lse_project automation. It does not elaborate further on editor state or failure behavior, but it adds useful operational context beyond the annotation.

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 compact sentences, with the core purpose stated first and the important close-before-automation caveat immediately after. There is no wasted wording.

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 simple two-action editor-control tool with full schema coverage, a destructiveHint annotation, and no output schema, the description supplies the essential purpose, one key workflow constraint, and the file-lock consequence. Nothing critical is missing.

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 action enum and lpr_path semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the .lpr context but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 pair, open/close, and a specific resource, the LASAL SCREEN (LSE) editor for .lpr screen projects. It also differentiates the close action from lse_project automation by explaining the file-lock relationship.

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 gives an explicit and useful condition for using close: do it before running lse_project automation because it releases .lpr file locks. The open case is implied by the tool purpose but not given the same explicit when-to-use guidance.

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