openl Open Project

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

The description mentions 'Open for editing' but does not disclose potential side effects like locking or the need to close the project afterward. With no destructiveHint in annotations, the description carries the burden but falls short of providing full behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that cover purpose, features, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's main purpose and usage. It could mention related tools (e.g., openl_close_project) or clarify the editing vs viewing distinction, but overall it provides sufficient context for basic use.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond summarizing the branch and revision parameters; the individual parameter descriptions already provide sufficient detail. No new semantic information is added.

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's purpose: 'Open a project for editing.' It also specifies support for branches and revisions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like openl_get_project or openl_list_projects by emphasizing its role as a prerequisite for making changes.

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 advises using this tool before making changes to project tables or rules, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for read-only viewing, alternatives like openl_get_project are not mentioned), and does not clarify when to choose branch vs revision.

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