move_to_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not explain side effects such as changing the current selection, behavior when the field does not exist, what 'get_text' actually retrieves, or how 'select' affects the editor state.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact parameter list. There is no filler or repetition, though the parameter explanations are so terse that the description feels skeletal rather than rich.

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 required parameters doc_id and name are identified, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Yet with no annotations, 5 parameters, and many nearby siblings like move_cursor, get_field_text, and select_text, the description leaves important selection and sequencing context to be inferred.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning beyond the bare parameter titles: doc_id is 'Document ID from open_document', start means 'Move to start of field', and select means 'Select the field content'. However, 'Whether to get text' remains vague and does not clarify what text is retrieved or how it is returned.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Move cursor to a named field.' It is distinct from generic cursor tools like move_cursor because it specifically targets a named field, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as move_cursor or set_cursor_position.

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 use case is implied: use this when you want to move the cursor to a named field, and doc_id is referenced as coming from open_document, which implies a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over move_cursor, select_text, get_field_text, or other related sibling tools.

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