cursor_set

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that cursors are process-scoped and dropped on server restart, and it provides the name regex. However, it does not mention what happens when re-registering an existing name (overwrite vs error), which is a meaningful behavioral gap.

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 three sentences long with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage context and validation rules. Every sentence earns its place and provides necessary 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?

For a simple registration tool with only two required parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, lifetime, and naming constraints. Missing details like overwrite behavior and return payload are not critical to invoking the tool. No output schema is present, so those details would be a nice-to-have rather than a blocker.

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 schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the name pattern regex and explaining that time anchors can be referenced as '@<name>', which goes beyond the schema. This additional guidance helps an agent use the parameters correctly.

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 states the action ('register') and the resource ('named time anchor'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It also indicates how the anchor is used by other tools ('@<name>'), which distinguishes it from cursor_list and cursor_delete. No ambiguity remains about the tool's core purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to create reusable named time anchors and avoid copying ps integers. It also gives practical constraints such as process-scoped lifetime and naming rules. It does not explicitly discuss exclusions relative to cursor_list/cursor_delete, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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