set_current_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the mutation itself. It does not say whether the page must already exist, what happens with an invalid pageId, whether this is a persistent document change or transient view state, or whether it affects selection.

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 the verb and the identifying parameter front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy.

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?

The operation is conceptually simple and needs no output schema, but with zero annotations and zero parameter coverage an agent still lacks the identifier format and the side-effect profile. Minimally adequate for a one-parameter tool, with clear 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 description coverage is 0% for the single parameter. The description repeats the name pageId but never states the expected format (node ID, key, or page name) or any constraint, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's type declaration.

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?

States a specific verb (set) and resource (current/active page) qualified by an identifier, so the operation is unambiguous in isolation. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as set_focus, set_selections, or move_node_to_page, which also touch view/selection state.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this description whether it should call this versus create_page, duplicate_page, or set_focus when the goal is simply to change the viewed page.

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