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

The description adds the important behavioral constraint that seeking only works during playback, which is not captured by annotations. It implies a state change (position change) consistent with readOnlyHint=false. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core action and units are front-loaded, and the constraint is stated second. Efficient and easy to parse.

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 is simple, but the room optionality conflict between schema (required) and schema description (omit) is not resolved. The description could have clarified the default-room behavior or that room is optional, but it doesn't. The playing condition is covered, so the main gap is this ambiguity.

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 description clarifies position_seconds with 'seconds from the start' and an example, adding value beyond the schema's bare type/minimum. However, it does not address the room parameter, and the schema itself is inconsistent (room marked required yet its description says 'Omit for the default room'), leaving ambiguity unresolved.

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 clearly states the action ('Jump to a position in the current track'), the resource, and the unit with a concrete example. It distinguishes from siblings like next_track/previous_track because it's about precise positioning within a track, not skipping tracks.

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 provides a clear condition ('Only works while something is playing') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. No mention of next/previous as the preferred way to skip tracks.

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