app.open_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: it destroys the current document, and it clears the clipboard as a side effect (relevant given the sibling clipboard.peek/clear tools). It still omits whether unsaved changes are prompted for or silently discarded, and how an invalid or missing path is handled.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the primary effect front-loaded and the side effect trailing. Every clause carries information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important state effects but leaves the parameter and failure modes undocumented. An agent knows what it does to the session but not how to call it correctly on the first try.

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% and the single required parameter 'path' is never mentioned in the description. Nothing tells the agent whether the path must be absolute, whether the .pptx extension is required, or whether the file must already exist — the description must compensate here and does not.

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 a .pptx file') plus the effect on existing state ('replace the current document'), which implicitly separates it from app.new_document and the document.* editing tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is how you load an existing .pptx rather than create one. There is no statement of when not to use it, no mention of what happens to unsaved work in the current document, and no pointer to app.new_document as the alternative for starting fresh.

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