set_focus

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real side effect beyond the name — it 'switches to the node's page first' — which is valuable navigation behavior an agent would otherwise not expect. However, it says nothing about failure modes (invalid/stale id), return values, or permission requirements, leaving notable gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place: the selection action, the page-switch side effect, and the usage context.

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 one-param navigation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, its side effect, and when to reach for it. Only error/edge-case behavior is missing, which is minor here.

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% for the single nodeId parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by indicating the id may come from a cross-page find_nodes call, implying cross-page ids are acceptable. That is useful but incomplete — it doesn't state format, or whether the id must exist in the current document.

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+resource ('Select a single node and scroll the viewport to it'), clearly distinguishable from multi-select siblings like set_selections and from set_current_page. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope ('single node') does the differentiating work.

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?

'Use this to show the user what you just built or found' gives a concrete use case, and the note that it works with ids from a cross-page find_nodes establishes a prerequisite context. No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. vs set_selections), so it falls short of a 5.

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