open

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

With only readOnlyHint=false available, the description adds substantial behavioral context: a backup is written to a store, retention applies, a history entry is created, and the document content is left unchanged. This meaningfully expands on the single annotation, though it doesn't cover failure modes 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?

The action is front-loaded and the whole definition is two compact clauses plus a short clarifying sentence. Every element earns its place, though the parenthetical '(retention applies)' is slightly terse.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and a minimal annotation, the description covers the side effects, the retention implication, and the timing trigger adequately. The main remaining gap is disambiguation from sibling tools like live_open and restore.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Path to the .docx'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description references 'the document' but adds no format or path guidance beyond what the schema states, matching the baseline for fully documented params.

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 concretely states what the tool does: it backs the document into its store (with retention) and records an entry in the history, clarifying that the document itself is not modified. This is specific enough to distinguish it from a generic 'open', but it never contrasts with the near-identical sibling live_open or restore, leaving real ambiguity about which 'open' to pick.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'call it when a session starts,' which tells the agent the scenario in which the tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives (e.g., live_open), so the agent gets context but no routing guidance.

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