open_assembly

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which alone would leave an agent unsure when damage can occur. The description refines this usefully: opening does not overwrite, and mutation is gated behind the explicit allow_edit opt-in, which reconciles the destructive flag with a safe default. It stops short of covering failure modes (file already open, unsupported format) or how allow_large affects behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its safety property, with no filler. The terseness edges into under-specification rather than verbosity, which is penalized elsewhere rather than here.

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 destructive, non-idempotent document-opening tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description leaves important gaps: the role of allow_large, what path accepts, and what the caller gets back or how to detect failure. An agent could call it, but only with guesses about two of the three inputs.

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% across three parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning. It explains allow_edit well (explicit authorization for modifications) but says nothing about path (expected format, absolute vs relative, native assembly only) or allow_large, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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?

"Open a native assembly" gives a specific verb plus resource, and "without overwriting it" narrows the operation further. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as open_part, activate_document, or new_assembly, so an agent cannot tell from the text which opening tool applies to a given case.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to choose open_assembly over open_part, activate_document, or new_assembly, nor what preconditions must hold (document closed, native format only). The allow_edit sentence describes a parameter rather than a usage condition, so the agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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