move_cursor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the core behavior—moving the cursor—and distinguishes the two invocation modes, but it does not disclose side effects on selection, interaction between position and move_id, or what happens if both or neither are supplied.

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 compact and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a clean argument list. Every line earns its place and there is no filler.

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 description covers the main invocation choices and an output schema exists, so return values need not be documented. However, the schema marks position and move_id as optional, while the description implies one is needed; it should clarify whether exactly one must be provided, and what happens if both or neither are passed.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully: it identifies the source of doc_id, enumerates all valid named position values, and explains move_id as a raw advanced integer ID. This gives an agent substantially more meaning than the bare JSON schema.

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 ('Move the cursor') and the target ('a named position or raw MovePos ID'), with a specific list of named positions. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like set_cursor_position or move_to_field, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 useful context by explaining that doc_id comes from open_document and by listing valid named positions. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling cursor tools, nor does it give explicit exclusions or alternative tool guidance.

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