set_current_network

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: NO_UNDO, error conditions (node_not_found, viewport_unavailable), and server-side response capping. This is helpful, though it does not explain success behavior or side effects beyond navigation.

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-loads the core API call. It efficiently lists error cases. The parenthetical phrase is a minor distraction but does not waste words.

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 2-parameter tool, the description covers the main operation and error cases, but misses the success return value and fails to define 'ctx'. It is adequate but leaves notable 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It implies 'path' is a node path via the node_not_found error, but 'ctx' is completely unexplained. No details on formats or allowed values are given.

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 clearly identifies the operation as NetworkEditor.cd(path), which sets the current network context. It provides specific error conditions that clarify the tool's behavior. However, the reference to 'add-viewport-control-tools' is cryptic and does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state typical use cases, preconditions, or contrast with other navigation tools. The error conditions are behavioral, not usage guidance.

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