manage_visudesigner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the actions (open/close) and gives a reason for closing (before automated operations). However, it does not disclose potential side effects like unsaved changes being lost or the process being killed abruptly.

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 extremely concise, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. No fluff, front-loaded information, and easy to parse.

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 open/close tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it (close before automated ops), and the parameters. It could mention the necessity of a project being selected, but that is inferable from the sibling tool 'select_project' and the optional 'lvp_path'.

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 fully describes both parameters: 'action' with enum values and 'lvp_path' with a clear purpose. The main description adds context for when 'lvp_path' should be omitted. Since schema coverage is 100% and descriptions are meaningful, this is above the baseline.

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's purpose: 'Open or close the VISUDesigner GUI.' It identifies the specific resource (VISUDesigner GUI) and the action (open/close), distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_project or deploy_all.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Close before running automated visu operations.' This tells the agent when to use the 'close' action. The open action is implied as the natural counterpart. Could be slightly more explicit about when opening is needed, but the guidance is clear enough.

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