Open in WordCraft

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

Annotations only declare the generic non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent profile; the description goes further by disclosing that control=true starts a loopback-only control channel secured by a key in WordCraft's settings folder, and that this is a prerequisite for run_wordcraft_commands live=true. That is meaningful side-effect and setup information. It stops short of saying whether an already-running app instance is reused or what the return looks like.

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 filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the conditional control-channel detail following. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and only generic annotations, the description covers the risky part (the control channel and its credential) and the cross-tool dependency. Minor gaps remain: behavior with the default empty paths array, and whether opening replaces or adds to the app's current window state.

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 50%: 'paths' is documented in the schema (absolute, max 50) and is self-explanatory from its name, while 'control' has no schema description at all. The description compensates by spelling out exactly what control=true does, so both parameters end up unambiguous. It does not address the empty-default case for either parameter.

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 documents in the WordCraft desktop app') plus the intended outcome ('for manual editing'), which separates it from create_document/edit_document that produce or modify content programmatically. It also names the sibling it feeds into (run_wordcraft_commands), so an agent can place the tool in the workflow without opening a schema.

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?

It establishes the selection condition clearly: use this when a human should edit documents manually, and set control=true only when a subsequent run_wordcraft_commands live=true session is intended. There is no explicit when-not statement (e.g. what to use for headless edits) and no mention of what happens if paths is left empty, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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