ms_moc_open_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain what side effects 'opening' a document has, whether it modifies state, requires confirmation, or how the dry run and confirmation_token interact. The idempotency_key suggests retry semantics, but this is not disclosed.

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 and front-loads the core purpose, which is good for conciseness. However, it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters and no other explanatory structure, making it too terse to be genuinely helpful.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context about the dry-run flow, confirmation token usage, idempotency behavior, and what the tool actually returns or changes. The complexity of six parameters and a security-oriented 'hash-bound' requirement demands more explanation than this one sentence provides.

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 adds almost no parameter meaning beyond listing 'optional dry run'. The six parameters (project_directory, document_path, document_sha256, idempotency_key, dry_run, confirmation_token) are not explained, leaving the agent to guess the format, purpose, and validation rules for each.

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 states a specific action ('Open') and a specific resource ('one hash-bound project document through MOC'), which distinguishes it from the broad sibling list. However, it does not clarify what 'open' means in this MOC context (e.g., returns content, marks as opened), leaving some ambiguity.

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 mentions 'after an optional dry run' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ms_inspect_document or other MOC tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are given, so the usage context is only implied.

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