Open Document

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only and not idempotent, and the description adds genuinely new operational context: it runs in background mode without activating Illustrator and never invokes Computer Use. That tells the agent about UI side effects and execution environment. It does not mention what happens on an already-open file, unsaved changes, or file-not-found handling.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the first states the action, the second states the execution mode. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key missing runtime context (background, no Computer Use) needed to call this in an automation loop. It is nearly complete; only error/modal behavior on open remains undisclosed.

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 100%, so both 'path' (with accepted extensions) and 'color_space' (enum, omit to preserve original) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already there, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Illustrator document) plus the input source (a file path), which cleanly separates it from create_document, close_document, and save_document. It stops short of naming a sibling tool or contrasting with the import tools (import_svg_as_editable, import_pdf_as_paths), so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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: 'from a file path' tells the agent this is for existing documents rather than new ones, and background mode hints it is safe for headless automation. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or reference to an alternative such as create_document or an import tool.

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