open_model

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as destructive, but the description earns credit by spelling out what exactly is destroyed (unsaved changes to the current model are lost) and by stating the path must be a full Windows path on the machine running CSiBridge. Missing detail: whether a missing/invalid file errors out or leaves the prior model intact.

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?

Three tight sentences (plus one arg line): what it does, the destructive consequence, and the argument. The consequence is front-loaded immediately after the action, which is exactly where an agent needs it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the agent gets the action, the destruction warning, and the path contract. Minor gaps remain: error behavior on a nonexistent path, and whether the open-model state affects subsequent calls (e.g., status/run_analysis).

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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies a full Windows path referencing a file on the CSiBridge host machine, plus the .bdb extension. It stops short of giving an example path or quoting/escaping guidance.

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 (open) and resource (CSiBridge model file, .bdb) and adds the crucial scope note that it replaces the currently open model. That 'replacing the model currently open' clause is what separates it from the sibling new_model, so an agent can pick correctly without opening the schema.

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 implied but not routed: the reader learns the tool is for loading an existing .bdb file and that unsaved work should be saved first (implicitly pointing at save_model), yet neither save_model nor new_model is named, and no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement is given. Adequate but leaves the alternative choice to inference.

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