apps_open

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description goes further with non-obvious side-effect detail: it returns cwd, never overwrites a draft, and never sends cd to the shared PTY — a real behavioral constraint an agent could not derive from annotations or schema.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the behavioral caveats following. Every clause carries information; no filler or restating of the tool name.

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 state-mutating tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description partially covers behavior and return value (cwd) but omits all parameter meaning and offers no guidance versus apps_launch/apps_create. It is workable but leaves the invocation details to guesswork.

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% and the description says nothing about either parameter. In particular, expectedRevision appears to be a concurrency/optimistic-locking control and appId's expected format is unstated, so the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap in a 2-parameter tool.

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 and resource ('Open an existing App or retained draft'), which is enough to distinguish it from apps_create or apps_publish. However, it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling apps_launch, which an agent would also associate with opening/running an app, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

'Existing App or retained draft' implies the tool only applies to already-created resources, so usage is implied rather than stated. It names no alternative (e.g. apps_create for new apps, apps_launch for running one) and gives no preconditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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