graphite_select_documentSwitches the active tab to a specified open document so subsequent editor operations apply to that document.
Make another open document the active tab. graphite_get_document lists open documents. All other tools act on the active document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| document_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world write semantics, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the global side effect: every other tool operates on whatever document is active, so this call changes the target of subsequent calls.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and followed by the supporting lookup tool and the context for why it matters.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the action, the sibling to find IDs, and the cross-tool effect. What is missing is any hint about failure modes (e.g., passing a document that is not open) or the ID format.
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 carry the burden for document_id. It implies the ID comes from graphite_get_document, which is useful, but it never states the numeric-string format (^\d+$) or that exactly one ID is required, so compensation is partial.
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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Make another open document the active tab.' It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from graphite_get_document, which is named as the listing tool rather than the switching tool.
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?
It names the sibling that lists candidates (graphite_get_document) and states the consequence that selects this tool: all other tools act on the active document, so this is how you redirect them. There is no explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.