open_selected_device_in_max

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the action without mentioning side effects like launching an external application, requiring a selection, failure conditions, or reversibility, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 that is front-loaded, direct, and contains no unnecessary words. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core action.

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?

The tool has no annotations, one unexplained parameter, and the description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a selected device), what happens if no device is selected, or the nature of the editor launch. The output schema exists but is not leveraged. The description is too sparse for full context.

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 provides no explanation for the sole parameter bridge_session_id. The parameter's purpose and effect remain completely undocumented, and the description does not compensate for this gap.

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 explicitly states the verb 'open', the target 'selected Max device', and the destination 'native Max editor', which precisely defines the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like save_max_device or get_selected_max_device.

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?

The description implies usage whenever a Max device is selected and needs to be edited in the native editor, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other tools, mention exclusions, or provide context about prerequisites.

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