set_arrangement_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action (moving the playhead) without mentioning side effects, such as whether playback is stopped or whether the change is reversible. This lack of context could mislead an agent about safety and impact.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The parameter list is relevant and well-formatted, with no unnecessary information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple setter, the description covers the action and parameters, but it lacks behavioral context (e.g., effects on playback). Without an output schema or annotations, the description does not fully address all situational nuances an agent might need.

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 no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining 'time' as beats from arrangement start with an example, and 'user_prompt' as telemetry input. This provides meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Move the arrangement playhead to a specific position.' This is precise and distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_playback or set_locator.

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 implies the tool's usage context (positioning the playhead) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. However, the action is unambiguous and no competing tool exists, so it remains clear enough.

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