set_cursor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether the move is undoable, whether it interrupts playback or recording, whether it scrolls the view, or what happens if time_sec exceeds the project length.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding, appropriate for a single-parameter tool. It is arguably too terse rather than too verbose, but it wastes nothing.

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 trivial one-parameter state setter with no output schema, the description is minimally viable, but it omits units confirmation, boundary behavior, and any interaction with playback or selection that an agent would want before invoking it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only repeats the parameter name in backticks. It adds no range, no reference origin (project start vs. timeline), and no precision guidance beyond what the identifier 'time_sec' already implies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Move') and a specific resource ('the edit cursor'), so the agent knows exactly what state changes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent timeline tools such as set_time_selection or move_selected_items, which a sibling-aware description should do.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. a loaded project), and no routing to alternatives like set_time_selection. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.

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