open_document

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

With no annotations, the description must bear full burden. It only states it opens a document for editing and returns success/error. Missing details like whether it acquires a lock, replaces the current document, or requires the file to already be open elsewhere. This is insufficient for safe usage.

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 and a structured Args/Returns section. It front-loads the main action. However, it could include a brief note on behavior without significant expansion.

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 complex ecosystem of 150+ sibling tools, the description is too terse. It does not explain the 'open' semantics: whether multiple documents can be open, how it relates to 'switch_document', or if it changes which document is active. The output schema exists but the Returns line is trivial.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does state 'Full path to the document' for file_path, which clarifies the type of string expected. However, no further detail on path format (absolute, relative), file extension, or validation rules. Adequate but minimal.

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 an existing Word document for editing, using specific verb ('open') and resource ('existing Word document'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_document' and 'close_document'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given 150+ siblings, such as 'close_document', 'switch_document', or 'list_open_documents', the lack of contextual hints or when-not-to-use conditions is a significant gap.

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