open_image

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it says edits are non-destructive, which reinforces the safe mutation model, and it names the return values (project_id and state) since there is no output schema. Missing detail on permissions or failure modes keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences with zero filler; the action and the return contract are both stated immediately. Nothing is wasted and the key facts are front-loaded.

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?

Return values compensate for the absent output schema, which is helpful. However, for a tool with two completely undocumented parameters and no annotations covering the semantics of inputs, the description leaves an agent guessing about the path format and the purpose of name.

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 has to carry the burden of explaining parameters, but it mentions neither path nor name. There is no indication of what format path takes (absolute, URI), whether the file must exist, whether name defaults to the filename, or what happens when name is null.

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 image') plus the resulting artifact ('new non-destructive editing project'), which separates it from mutation tools like edit_project or export_image. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling open_project, so the boundary between opening an image versus opening a project is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'as a new non-destructive editing project' signals this is the entry point for starting work on a file. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the agent must infer the difference from sibling open_project on its own.

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