raw_cursor_right

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does warn that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful, but the wording is hedged and does not specify the actual state impact or whether the operation is destructive.

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 first sentence is clear and front-loaded, but 'Static no-argument Audacity action' partially repeats the schema, and 'inspect the command name first' is vague, non-actionable advice that does not meaningfully help an agent.

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 no-argument action, the description gives enough to invoke it: what it does and a caution about side effects. However, 'one unit' is not defined, and the side-effect warning is too uncertain to fully prepare an agent for what happens after invocation.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument,' adding no confusion.

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 action: 'Move the cursor right by one unit.' It names the specific direction and granularity, distinguishing it from raw_cursor_left and the short/long jump variants in the sibling list.

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 when to use it — for a single-unit rightward cursor move — but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like raw_cursor_short_jump_right or raw_cursor_long_jump_right, nor does it state when not to use it.

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