Open Project for Editing

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing support for branches and revisions, and indicating the tool is a precursor to modifications. The openWorldHint annotation is not contradicted; the description aligns with opening projects for editing.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and quickly cover the key features (branches, revisions) and usage context. No wasted words.

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?

While the description covers the main action and usage, it lacks details on return values, error cases, and prerequisites (e.g., project must exist). The response_format parameter hints at output, but the description does not elaborate. Given no output schema, some additional context would be helpful.

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 coverage, the description adds extra context by emphasizing that 'projectId' must be taken directly from list_projects, and explains that 'branch' and 'revision' serve specific purposes. This enriches the schema descriptions.

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 'Open a project for editing' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like openl_create_project and openl_close_project by focusing on opening existing projects for modification.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before making changes to project tables or rules,' providing clear context for when to use. It implicitly excludes read-only operations and does not mention alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for most scenarios.

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