set_pos_by_set

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only states the operation and parameter meanings. It doesn't disclose whether the cursor move affects the current selection, whether it is absolute or relative, what happens with invalid indices, or any side effects on the document 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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the core operation before parameter details. The Arg list wastes no tokens, though it mostly rephrases the parameter names, so it is concise but slightly thin rather than exemplary.

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?

Given the 0% schema coverage, the absence of annotations, and a large sibling family, the description provides the minimum to attempt a call but not enough to choose or use it safely. It lacks index conventions, prerequisite conditions, and any reason this tool is the right one among set_cursor_position or move_cursor.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the parameter descriptions must compensate. The Arg list adds modest meaning: doc_id comes from open_document, list/para are indexes, and pos is a position within a paragraph. However, it stops short of explaining zero/one-based indexing, valid ranges, or what 'pos' counts, so compensation is incomplete.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('cursor position'), and identifies the addressing scheme (list/para/pos). It is clear on its own, but it doesn't distinguish this tool from the sibling set_cursor_position or get_pos_by_set beyond the addressing notation, so it loses the fifth point.

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 prefer this tool over set_cursor_position, move_cursor, or get_pos_by_set; there are no explicit prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit context is 'doc_id from open_document', which hints that a document must already be open but does not explain how to choose this variant.

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