raw_snap_to_prior

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

The description warns that it 'may open a dialog or change project state' but does not specify the nature of the dialog or the state change. With no annotations, this vague disclosure is insufficient for full transparency about side effects.

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, using two sentences to convey the action and a caution. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured.

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?

While the description states the core action, it lacks specifics about what 'previous time unit' means (e.g., previous grid line, previous second) and does not describe the resulting state. The caution about side effects is present but not detailed, leaving some gaps.

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 no parameters, and the description explicitly states 'no-argument,' which eliminates any ambiguity. The empty schema is fully consistent with the description.

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 ('Snap to the previous time unit') and identifies it as a 'Static no-argument Audacity action.' However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'raw_snap_to_nearest' or 'raw_snap_to_off', which could cause ambiguity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The caution about inspecting the command name is vague and does not clarify usage context or selection criteria.

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