apple_textedit_open

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that the call launches the app and may surface window or import dialogs. This side-effect caveat is genuinely useful since opening is not guaranteed to be silent.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the caveat second; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though it spends a sentence on side effects rather than the required input.

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 one-parameter open tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and its UI side effects but leaves the required path argument entirely unspecified. An agent can call it, but without confidence about what path values are valid.

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, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only implies the argument names a local document; it gives no format, absolute/relative, or file-extension 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+resource ('Open a local TextEdit document'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like apple_textedit_create, apple_textedit_save, and apple_textedit_read_text. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the 5 benchmark for routing.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as opening via another app or the create/read siblings. The word 'local' hints at scope but is not framed as a selection condition.

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