set_current_field_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says what is set, not what happens to existing field names, whether the operation is destructive, or what option/prev/next actually do. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a structured argument list. It contains no filler, though the argument lines are skeletal and could be expanded without harming conciseness.

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 tool has five parameters, no annotations, and a terse description, so an agent lacks enough context to call it correctly in non-obvious cases. The output schema may explain return values, but the meaning of option flags and the purpose of prev/next remain unexplained, making this incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the bare input schema. It adds only terse labels like 'Field name to set' and 'Previous field name,' but does not explain allowed values, option flag semantics, or the relationship between prev/next. This is minimal compensation.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource: 'Set the current field name at cursor position,' which tells an agent what operation is performed. It is clear enough to distinguish this from many siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it with field-related tools like rename_field or modify_field_properties.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as rename_field, modify_field_properties, or move_to_field. The description only states the operation and lists arguments, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the short phrase 'at cursor position.'

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