set_cursor_position

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. It only says the cursor will be set; it does not mention side effects on selection, whether the position is zero- or one-based, what happens with invalid positions, or whether the document must be the active open document. For a mutating operation this is a meaningful 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 extremely compact, with a clear one-line purpose followed by a neatly formatted argument list. There is no filler or redundant prose; every line contributes information. This is an example of appropriate 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?

For a cursor-positioning tool with no annotations and multiple closely related sibling tools, the description should clarify when this is the right choice, how it differs from move_cursor, and what coordinate or indexing semantics apply. It provides none of that. The doc_id hint is helpful but insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's argument list adds necessary meaning: doc_id is identified as coming from open_document, and list, para, and pos are given basic glosses. However, the explanations are terse and do not clarify indexing conventions, units, or valid ranges, so the compensation is only partial.

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: 'Set cursor to a specific position.' The parameter names and argument list make the absolute-coordinate nature apparent. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling move_cursor, which could also be interpreted as setting the 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_cursor or set_pos_by_set. The description assumes the agent knows this is for absolute positioning, and it does not mention constraints such as requiring an open document or relationship to selection state.

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