open_in_source

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not disclose whether opening replaces existing content, requires specific item types, or has side effects. Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), leaving ambiguity about modification.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., the item must be a clip) or what happens if the item is already open.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter 'item_id' is already documented as 'Node ID or name'. The description adds no additional semantics or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool opens a project item in the Source Monitor for preview and trimming. It specifies the verb 'open', the resource 'project item', and the destination 'Source Monitor', distinguishing it from related tools like 'close_source_monitor'.

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?

The description implies usage for preview and trimming but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_source_in_out' or 'insert_from_source'. No exclusions or context cues are provided.

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