open_sketch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose one real side effect many agents would miss: '(sets selection)'. It says nothing about whether the sketch is locked/read-only, what happens if the ID is invalid, or whether unsaved state in a currently open sketch is affected.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the side effect tucked in parentheses. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the outcome, and the selection side effect. A brief note on return value or interaction with an already-open sketch would make it fully complete.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage ('ID of the sketch to open'). The description's 'by ID' corroborates that but adds no format or sourcing detail; with a single fully-documented param this is close to the ceiling.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Open a sketch by ID') plus the outcome ('to view and edit it'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this from near-siblings like select_sketch or _get_sketch_data, leaving an agent to guess why one would be preferred over the other.

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 phrase 'to view and edit it' implies the situation in which you call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (select_sketch, _get_sketch_data, preview_sketch). Usage is inferable but not directed.

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