open_motion_playground

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: the link is machine-local, lives only for the duration of the Raven process, and the file is re-read on every load so a rebuilt playground appears on reload. What it does not address is the destructive side the annotations flag - whether opening a new playground supersedes/overwrites a previously opened one, or what port/session state is clobbered.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then operational instructions, then lifecycle caveats - a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It is on the dense side (the designer/url instruction and the get_motion_sends handoff are stated in overlapping ways), but every clause carries a real constraint.

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 one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it and what to do next. The remaining gap is the return value: it never says what 'a local link' looks like or what happens if a playground is already open, which matters given destructiveHint=true and no output schema to fall back on.

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 coverage is 100% and already states absolute path, regular file, no symlink, 8 MB cap, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by telling the agent where the value comes from ('the html_path that create_motion_playground returned') and by warning that the raw file path must not be given to the designer - provenance and misuse guidance the schema cannot express.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Open a motion playground at a local link') plus the effect ('designer can tune it in their browser and use Send to your agent'). It explicitly separates itself from create_motion_playground (which produced the path) and get_motion_sends (which receives the notes), so an agent can route correctly without opening any sibling schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use sequencing: pass the html_path create_motion_playground returned, hand the designer the url rather than the file path, then call get_motion_sends to receive what they send. It also names a tool this is NOT ('separate from Raven Grab'), which is exactly the kind of exclusion that prevents mis-selection.

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