open_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost none of it: no statement of permissions, no side effects on other cases (e.g. whether a currently active case is deactivated), no error behavior for invalid or already-open cases. 'Make active' implies a state mutation but leaves its consequences unstated.

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 short sentences: purpose first, example second. No filler, though the example is arguably doing parameter work that a brief clause about case_id could do more directly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description says nothing about the resulting state, return value, or failure modes. An agent knows the intent but not the consequences, which is insufficient for a mutation.

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 must compensate for the single required case_id. The concrete example ("20261022-noisy-sid-1000042") usefully conveys the ID format, but the parameter itself is never named or explained and its required-ness and accepted forms are left to 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?

States a specific verb and effect on a specific resource: making an *existing* case active, which separates it from create_case or get_case. It does not explain what 'active' means as a state (versus update_case or other statuses), so the purpose is clear but not fully differentiated from every sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to open a case versus updating it, what prerequisites exist, or what happens if the case is already active or closed. The only added content is a literal example invocation, not usage conditions or alternatives.

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