cursor_set_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility for explaining behavior. It states the main effect (moves the cursor) but gives no information about side effects like selection, playback, or undo behavior. For a simple cursor-move this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences: a clear front-loaded purpose statement and a brief parameter explanation. No redundancy. Every part contributes to correct invocation.

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 tool with one scalar parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and parameter meaning well enough for an agent to call it correctly. It does not cover alternatives or edge cases, but those are not essential for this simple 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only says 'time' is a number. The description adds the critical unit: 'Position in seconds.' This meaningfully improves parameter understanding, though it does not specify the reference point (e.g., project start) or valid range.

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 states a specific action and target: 'Move the cursor to a specific time position.' This is clearly distinct from relative cursor movements like raw_cursor_left/right or anchor-based moves like cursor_to_track_start, but it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 phrase 'specific time position' implies this is for absolute positioning rather than relative navigation or preset positions, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus transport_set_cursor, cursor_to_rack_start, or raw_cursor_* alternatives. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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