open_library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates editor state without destroying data and is not repeatable-safe. The description adds the 'from the active project' scoping constraint, which is useful, but says nothing about what opening does to prior editor state or whether the library must already exist.

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?

A single tight sentence with no waste, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of detail rather than through efficient density.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and no annotations covering what opening actually does, the description leaves too much unspecified — notably what 'name' and 'folder' mean and what state results after the call.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions 'name' or 'folder' or how they interact (e.g., whether folder qualifies the library lookup). With an undocumented required parameter and an optional one, this is a real gap.

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 (Fusion library .flbr) and scopes it to the active project's library editor. It is distinguishable from siblings like open_design and search_library, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 guidance on when to open a library versus alternatives such as search_library, get_library_part, or insert_library_part, nor any preconditions beyond 'from the active project'. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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