transport_jog

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states the core behavior (nudge playhead by steps, negative backward) but does not mention edge cases (e.g., boundaries during playback, effect on playback state, or error handling). It is minimally adequate but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and the parameter. Every word is purposeful: 'Nudge' (action), 'playhead' (resource), 'by steps 16th-notes' (unit), 'negative = backward' (direction). No wasted text.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information. It explains what the tool does and how the parameter works. However, it could mention whether it works during playback or at the song boundaries to be fully complete. Still, it is largely sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema provides only the parameter name 'steps' (type integer) with 0% description coverage. The description significantly adds value by specifying the unit ('16th-notes') and the meaning of sign ('negative = backward'). This clarifies the parameter semantics beyond the schema, enabling correct usage.

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 explicitly states the action ('Nudge playhead') and the resource ('playhead'), with the incremental nature and unit ('by `steps` 16th-notes'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like transport_set_position which sets absolute position, and transport_play/stop which control playback. The verb 'nudge' implies relative movement, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context: the tool is for incremental playhead movement in 16th-note steps, with negative values for backward. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the contrast with absolute positioning tools (e.g., transport_set_position) is implicit. An AI agent would understand to use this for relative jogging, not for jumping to a specific time.

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