ms_open_in_editor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the save-first prerequisite and that a visual graph editor opens showing nodes and connections, but it never states whether the operation is side-effect-free, whether it requires a live editor/connection, or what happens when no asset has been built.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core action, then the prerequisite, then the observable result. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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-parameter tool that has an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers purpose, precondition, and visual outcome adequately. It could be more complete by noting editor/connection requirements or failure behavior when no asset exists.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-related the description could add or omit.

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 the last built MetaSound asset in the UE5 MetaSounds editor'), so the agent knows exactly what action and target are involved. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like ms_audition or ms_export_graph, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 concrete precondition ('Must call ms_save_asset first to create a .uasset on disk'), which tells the agent the ordering required before invocation. It does not name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this one, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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