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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about opening in the mdedit reader and accepting natural identifiers. It does not disclose behavior around focus modes or side effects, but no annotation contradiction exists.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by identifier guidance and usage context. The list of request types is somewhat broad, but overall every sentence contributes useful information.

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 output schema and annotations, return values and safety are already covered. The description covers identifier selection and after-creation context, but it lacks explicit sibling disambiguation and does not explain the meaning of focus modes like export, publish, or review, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 80%, so the schema already documents natural names, internal identifiers, and when to omit them. The description reinforces that internal identifiers are optional, but adds little beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb and object: 'Open the current saved document in the mdedit reader.' It also clarifies that natural workspace names and document titles are accepted, and internal identifiers are optional. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like read_article, publish_article, or start_article_export.

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 gives explicit context: use it after creation or updates and for open, read, show, preview, export, publish, or review requests. But it does not explain when to prefer dedicated siblings such as publish_article or start_article_export, nor does it state exclusions, so the guidance is broad and potentially overlapping with other tools.

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