adobe_openFile

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

Adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: the target app is launched first if needed, so the agent knows a launch side effect may occur. However, with destructiveHint=false declared, the description says nothing about what happens to unsaved work when the file is already open — leaving the discardChanges parameter's effect entirely undisclosed.

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?

A single dense sentence: purpose first, routing table second, override note last. No filler, nothing to trim.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema needs to cover launch behavior and data-safety semantics; launch is covered but discardChanges is not, and there is no indication of what the tool returns or whether it returns the opened document's handle.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description has to compensate and does so partially: it explains the 'app' override and encodes 'path' semantics through the extension mapping. The 'discardChanges' boolean — the one parameter whose behavior matters for data safety — is never mentioned anywhere.

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 (open) and resource (file), then gives a concrete extension-to-application routing table (.aep→AE, .psd→Photoshop, .pdf→Illustrator). This is far more legible than the app-specific siblings ps_openFile/ai_openFile, since it makes clear this is the generic router.

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?

Implies usage strongly via 'open any file' plus auto-routing, and notes 'app overrides the choice' for manual override. But it never explicitly says when to prefer this over the sibling ps_openFile or ai_openFile, nor whether the file must already exist/is unsaved.

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