Open in GridCraft

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: with control=true the app opens a loopback-only control channel, which is both a network-surface disclosure and a prerequisite for another tool. That is real context beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action before the control-channel detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-required-param launch tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the action, the interactive purpose, and the one undocumented flag's side effect. The sample parameter's behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable but keeps this from a 5.

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 67%; paths and sample are documented in the schema, but the control boolean has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining exactly what control=true does and why it matters (enabling live command driving), which is the highest-value gap to fill.

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 and resource (open workbooks in the GridCraft desktop app) and clarifies the intent ('to keep working by hand'), which distinguishes it from the read/edit/convert siblings that operate without launching the app. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for headless use, but the resource and mode are unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear use context (interactive work in the desktop app) and a concrete condition for the control flag that gates a downstream tool (run_gridcraft_commands live=true). It does not state when NOT to use this versus e.g. read_workbook, but the interactive-vs-programmatic split is implied well enough to route correctly.

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