editor_open_document

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is clear without the text. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the supported UUID categories, but says nothing about what happens to currently open documents, whether unsaved work is at risk, or behavior when the UUID is invalid. A 3 is appropriate with annotations carrying the safety burden.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the scope qualification. Nothing needs trimming.

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 simple navigation tool with no output schema and annotations covering idempotence and safety, the description is nearly complete but silent on failure modes (unknown UUID, wrong document type for the current editor mode) and on side effects to existing open tabs. Adequate, with clear but minor gaps.

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 both parameters (instance_id auto-selection rules, documentUuid) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only contributes the set of document types a UUID may refer to, which is a modest addition over the schema's generic 'UUID of the document to open'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a concrete verb (open/navigate) and resource (document) and enumerates the accepted UUID domains: schematic page, PCB, and panel. That level of specificity lets an agent distinguish it from editor_get_current_document and editor_get_open_tabs, though it never explicitly names an alternative it must not be confused with (e.g. pcb_navigate_to).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer it should call this to bring a document into the editor, and the UUID-type sentence hints at valid inputs. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling navigation tools (pcb_navigate_to, pcb_navigate_to_region) that overlap in intent.

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