open_live_set

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that: it binds Set identity and source file, warns that a user must resolve unsaved-changes/file-load dialogs, and specifies that it only reports success after a bridge path readback and never dismisses dialogs itself. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 with the core action front-loaded, followed by the identity-binding constraint and the dialog/readback caveats. No filler and every sentence carries information.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the dialog risk, verification behavior, and non-dismissal guarantee. It leaves the dryRun/confirm workflow details to the fully-described schema, which is acceptable, though it could have surfaced the plan-then-confirm sequence more explicitly.

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 100% and each parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra syntax or semantics for path, expectedStateVersion, expectedSetFingerprint, planHash, or confirmationToken beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (one existing absolute .als Live Set) with the platform scope (running macOS Live app). An agent can clearly distinguish it from save_live_set and get_live_state 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?

The 'Plan or request' phrasing hints at the two-phase dryRun/confirm flow and notes Live may require a user to resolve a dialog, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over save_live_set, undo, or get_live_state, nor when opening is appropriate vs discouraged. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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