apple_numbers_open

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing side effects the annotations do not capture: the app is launched and UI window or import dialogs may appear, which implies a non-headless, possibly blocking operation. It stops short of saying what happens on a missing or invalid file.

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, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the side-effect caveat immediately after. Nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter open tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, the description is mostly adequate and does flag the dialog side effect. It omits what an agent likely needs next: whether opening returns a document handle for use by apple_numbers_read_range/apple_numbers_list_sheets, and behavior on a nonexistent path.

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 required 'path' parameter, which only carries type and length bounds. The description says 'local Numbers document' but never clarifies whether path is an absolute filesystem path, a file URL, or whether the file must already exist. It adds no semantics the schema does not already imply.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Open a local Numbers document' states exactly what the tool does, and it is distinguishable from apple_numbers_create, apple_numbers_save, and apple_numbers_close. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the parallel openers (apple_pages_open, apple_keynote_open) or with apple_numbers_list_documents, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like apple_numbers_list_documents (to locate a file) and apple_numbers_create (to make a new one) present, the description never says which situation calls for opening an existing document versus creating or listing. The agent must infer the workflow.

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