Seek media playback position

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds value by disclosing the underlying call (`media_player.media_seek` with the exact payload) and the return contract ('the list of states changed by the call'). It does not mention error conditions such as seeking while nothing is playing or positions beyond the media duration.

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?

Three short, front-loaded blocks (operation, when-to-use, returns) with no filler. The HTTP/payload sentence is slightly more implementation detail than an agent strictly needs, but it is compact and earns its place.

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 two-parameter media control tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, parameter mapping, and a return summary. The only missing piece is failure/edge-case behavior, which is a minor gap given the richness of the structured fields.

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 100%, and the schema already explains both parameters including that position is in seconds from the start of the current media. The description only reproduces the payload mapping, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Seek a media player to an absolute playback position') and scopes it to absolute positions, which cleanly separates it from the sibling play/pause and volume tools. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit 'Use when: jumping to a specific point in the currently playing media,' which is a clear triggering condition. It does not name a contrasting alternative or state when not to use it (e.g., relative skips or media not playing), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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