set_selections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does materially more than most siblings: it discloses a state change ('Switches to the first node's page'), a viewport side effect, and a failure/partial-success channel ('nodes on other pages are reported in skippedOnOtherPages'). It stops short of stating what happens if a node ID is invalid or whether selection can be cleared.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: the primary action comes first and the page-scoping caveat second. The second sentence is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries information that affects correct invocation.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral risks (page switch, skipped nodes, viewport scroll). Remaining gaps are minor edge cases such as invalid IDs or empty arrays, which the mention of skippedOnOtherPages partly covers.

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 nodeIds parameter, so the description must fill the gap. It adds genuinely useful semantics — node IDs may span pages and the first element determines which page becomes active — but says nothing about ID format, expected array size, or behavior for empty input, so it only partially compensates.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Set selection to multiple nodes') plus a side effect ('scroll viewport to show them'), which cleanly separates it from read-only siblings like get_selection or navigation tools like set_current_page. It never explicitly names an alternative, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'set selection to multiple nodes' but the description offers no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no comparison to related tools such as get_selection, set_focus, or set_current_page. The page-scoping note is a behavioral constraint, not guidance on when to choose this tool.

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