screenstudio_editor_open

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that an already-open project is reused rather than re-opened and that the call returns a timeline; it says nothing about failure behavior for bad paths or focus-stealing side effects of opening a window.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action and its reuse behavior come first. The closing sentence about the person watching edits is marginally decorative but conveys a real property of the tool.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the mutation profile, this is roughly adequate. It still omits the shape of the returned timeline, path format expectations, and error behavior, which an agent would need for robust invocation.

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 0% and the description never mentions projectPath at all, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation. It doesn't state whether the path must be absolute, a project file, or relative to some root.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Open a project in a Screen Studio editor window,' which is distinct from siblings like editor_list, editor_state, and editor_apply. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical '(or find it if already open)' implies idempotent reuse, which quietly tells the agent it needn't check open state first. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, e.g., relative to editor_list or editor_state.

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