session_goto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool mutates an already-open session rather than creating state, documents the return shape ({url}: post-navigation URL), and enumerates two concrete failure modes with status codes (409 session not open, 404 identity missing). It stops short of describing things like whether it waits for load completion or how it affects open tabs, leaving a small residual 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?

Front-loaded with the action and the precondition, then cleanly sectioned into Args and Returns/Fails. Every line carries information; the only minor cost is mild redundancy between the prose precondition and the 409 note.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies everything needed: precondition, both parameter meanings, return value, and error semantics with codes. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: `name` is tied to the exact identifier format reported by profiles_list, and `url` is given a concrete example. It adds real disambiguation value beyond two bare strings, though it does not say whether URLs without a scheme are normalized.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource — 'Navigate a session's current page to a URL' — which is clearly distinct from siblings like session_switch_tab or profile_start. An agent can select this tool without opening any schema.

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?

It states the prerequisite explicitly ('Open the identity's session with profile_start first') and adds the crucial exclusion that it does not open a session itself. It also names the exact recovery action when the 409 precondition fails, so both when-to-use and what-to-do-on-failure are covered.

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