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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so this is a state-changing operation, but the description gives no hint that selecting alters the agent's working context (what subsequent tools target) or whether selection persists across sessions. For a mutation-flagged tool with no output schema, the description leaves the behavioral consequence of 'select' entirely unexplained.

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?

A single short sentence with zero padding and the scope front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient rather than verbose, though it edges toward under-specification.

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 context-setting tool in a 40-tool suite, an agent needs to know that this changes the active page for later operations and what state it requires. Neither is stated, no output schema exists, and the annotations only cover the safety profile, so the definition is thin.

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 the schema already states the parameter accepts a page id or name, so the description cannot improve much here. It adds nothing about ambiguity handling (e.g., duplicate names) or format expectations, landing at the baseline.

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 ('Select') plus resource ('a page') within a named scope ('connected Studio project'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool acts on. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like swebsy_read_page or swebsy_open_site, which is what keeps it below a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (does a project need to be connected/open first?), and never names an alternative such as swebsy_read_page or swebsy_list_pages. The agent must infer that 'select' means making a page the active target for subsequent section/block operations.

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