Open an existing .FCStd file and make it the active document for editing; returns the document name and object list to support further parametric design work.
Open an existing .FCStd file, make it active. Returns doc name and object list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the side effect ('make it active') and the return payload ('doc name and object list'), but omits what happens if the file is missing, already open, or the path is invalid, and says nothing about permissions.
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 and side effect front-loaded and the return value appended. No filler.
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?
No annotations and no output schema, so the description must stand alone. It covers the action, the side effect, and the return shape, but leaves error/failure behavior and path conventions unspecified for a document-loading operation.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it adds the useful constraint that 'path' points to an .FCStd file, but says nothing about relative vs absolute paths or expected format.
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 ('an existing .FCStd file'), plus the side effect of making it active. A reader can distinguish it from new_document and close_document, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.
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 word 'existing' loosely implies this is for files that already exist rather than new ones, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like set_active_document or new_document.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.