obs_media_seek

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for disclosure and excels. It explicitly states 'There is NO bounds checking... seeking past the end does not clamp,' warns about live-stream behavior, and details the state-file desync risk on the reference machine. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first paragraph states the core function and mutual exclusivity; the second addresses edge cases (no bounds checking, live streams); the third warns against a common misuse pattern and points to the supported alternative. It is front-loaded, scannable, and free of redundant phrasing.

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 4-parameter, 0-required tool with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description completes the picture: it covers preconditions, failure modes, and unintended side effects. The reference-machine example grounds the guidance in an actual operational context. No significant informational gaps remain.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, the description adds critical semantics by defining the mutual exclusivity ('Exactly one of the two') and clarifying the unit and sign conventions (e.g., 'negative to rewind'). This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter documentation and earns more than the baseline.

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 precise verb+resource structure: 'Move the playhead of a media source, either to an absolute position or by a relative amount,' and clearly identifies both parameters with their roles. It differentiates itself from siblings by focusing on seeking and by referencing the read-first prerequisite (obs_media_status). This is specific, not a tautology, and immediately distinguishes this tool from the peer tools listed.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Read obs_media_status first... if durationMs is null and unboundedDuration is true, this source is a live stream and seeking is meaningless') and an explicit when-not-to-use scenario ('do not seek a looping media source to reach the next track'), including the alternative command. This is a model of clear usage direction.

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