set_locator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the create-or-rename behavior, which is key. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or prerequisites like being in arrangement view. This is adequate for a simple tool but not fully transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence is informative, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema and a small parameter set, the description covers the essential behavior and parameters. Minor gaps: no explicit prerequisites or return value info, but these are not critical for a straightforward locator operation.

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. It thoroughly explains all parameters: time (beat position), name (with examples), and user_prompt (telemetry purpose), adding meaning well beyond the bare 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?

Clearly states the action (create or rename) and resource (arrangement locator/marker at a beat position). The parenthetical 'if one already exists at that time' distinguishes it from siblings like get_locators and create_section_markers.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The rename behavior implies usage for single locator placement, but it does not say when to prefer this over create_section_markers or other tools. Usage context is only implied.

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