open_part

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

The line "allow_edit explicitly authorizes modifications" usefully explains the opt-in safety gate, which is real context beyond the annotation flags. However, annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description's emphasis on "without overwriting it" creates mild tension with that flag that is never resolved (what exactly gets destroyed?). Nothing is said about side effects such as whether the part becomes the active document or what happens on a failed open.

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 with the safety constraint front-loaded and zero padding. There is no wasted wording, though the second sentence could have been spent on the undocumented allow_large flag instead.

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 three-parameter open tool with no output schema, the description covers the headline risk but leaves two meaningful gaps: what open actually does to session state, and what allow_large controls. Adequate to attempt the call, not adequate to call it confidently.

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 carry parameter meaning and it only does so for allow_edit. The required `path` (format? relative or absolute?) and especially `allow_large` receive no explanation at all, leaving an agent guessing what threshold or behavior that flag unlocks.

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+resource ("Open a native part") and immediately scopes it relative to the main risk ("without overwriting it"). It is readable alongside siblings like open_assembly and activate_document, though it never explicitly says it targets parts rather than assemblies.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus open_assembly, activate_document, or list_documents, and no prerequisites (does the part need to exist on disk? must a document be active first?). The only implicit condition is that allow_edit must be set to permit modification.

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