cursor_to_track_end

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the core behavior of moving the cursor, which is positive, but it does not mention edge cases like having no selected track or whether the selection/playhead is preserved.

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?

A single, direct sentence fully communicates the action. There is no redundant wording or filler, and the essential target information is front-loaded.

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, parameterless cursor-movement command, the description is largely sufficient. It omits minor context such as behavior when no track is selected, but the core intent and outcome are clear given the low complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantic information to compensate for. The description adds the relevant semantic context by identifying the target location, which is sufficient for a parameterless command.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and a clear target ('end of the selected track'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cursor_to_track_start and cursor_to_project_end by stating the exact destination.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cursor_to_track_start or cursor_to_project_end. There is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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