open_place

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Open a Roblox place in Studio' but fails to mention side effects (e.g., does it close the current place? Does it require user confirmation?), operation semantics (asynchronous? blocking?), or any safety considerations. For a tool that likely mutates local state, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence, direct and to the point, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and required inputs.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description lacks important context: prerequisites (Studio must be running?), return value (success indicator?), behavior when place is already open, and potential errors. The sibling tools list includes many Studio-related tools, but the description does not help the agent understand when this tool is appropriate or what to expect after invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'place ID and universe ID' matching the required parameters, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The optional 'task' parameter with enum values is not explained; however, the schema itself provides descriptions for all parameters. The description does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('Roblox place in Studio') along with the method ('by place ID and universe ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cloud_publish_place and cloud_list_places, which operate on cloud data rather than opening in the Studio client.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., Studio must be running), no exclusion conditions, and no context on appropriate scenarios. The description only states what the tool does, not when or 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.