raw_store_cursor_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does warn that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and calls itself 'static,' which is useful, but it does not specify what state changes occur, whether they are reversible, or what 'inspect the command name first' actually entails.

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 purpose. The only mild redundancy is prefacing with 'StoreCursorPosition:' when the tool name already communicates that, but every other clause adds useful context about side effects and usage caution.

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 zero-argument command, the description gives enough context to understand purpose and warns about potential side effects. It could be more complete by explicitly connecting to raw_sel_cursor_stored_cursor and clarifying what 'inspect the command name first' means, but it is not inadequate.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema already covers this with an empty properties object. The description reinforces this by calling it a 'no-argument' action, but there is no parameter meaning to elaborate on, so the rubric baseline of 4 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool stores the current cursor position for later selection, which is a specific verb+resource action. It also distinguishes this from related siblings like raw_sel_cursor_stored_cursor and cursor_set_position by emphasizing 'for later selection.'

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 phrase 'for later selection' implies the tool should be used before a stored-cursor selection command, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, leaving usage largely to inference.

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