Open in Office

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

Annotations are all negative hints (false), giving no behavioral information. The description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it details the effect of read_only (a copy that cannot be saved over), new_instance (separate Excel/Word without other files), bring_to_front=false (reopens behind), macro handling per Trust Center, and the Windows-only limitation. This is substantial value beyond the annotations.

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 four sentences, each carrying distinct meaning: purpose, already-open behavior, parameter effects, and macro/platform constraints. It front-loads the core purpose and keeps every sentence relevant without redundancy.

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 tool with 4 parameters, an output schema, and no positive annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, behavioral nuances, parameter effects, macro security, and platform limitation. It references the complementary sibling tool and explains edge cases. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% with already descriptive parameter text. The description adds extra nuance: it explains read_only as 'a copy that cannot be saved over the file' (similar), but notably clarifies new_instance as a separate app 'the user's other files are not in', which deepens the schema's 'rather than the one running'. It also clarifies bring_to_front=false as 'reopens it behind whatever the user is doing', adding practical meaning.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('Opens a file in its Office application') and explains its purpose (for the user to see or work in). It explicitly connects to the sibling xlide_close_in_app by mentioning 'to put back a copy xlide_close_in_app closed', and defines scoping behaviors like 'Already open, it is brought forward instead' and 'Windows only'.

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?

It provides explicit use cases: 'after a change they should look at, or to put back a copy xlide_close_in_app closed'. It implicitly contrasts with xlide_close_in_app and gives guidance on parameter variants (read_only, new_instance, bring_to_front=false). The 'Windows only' constraint further clarifies when not to use it.

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