Navigate Playhead

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

Annotations provide safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds useful context beyond these: it specifies that the operation is navigation-only, never modifies clips, and reads back the resulting position. Missing is any mention of non-idempotency or side effects on selection state.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The movement actions are front-loaded, followed by a clarifying constraint. Every clause 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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 actions, 4 parameters), the description is nearly complete: it lists the movement targets, notes the read-back behavior, and states the navigation-only constraint. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It could be slightly more complete by hinting at the optional frames/track parameters, but schema coverage makes that minor.

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%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description mentions the broad action categories but adds no syntax or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline when the schema carries the burden.

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 ('Move') and resource ('the active-sequence playhead'), and enumerates all 12 movement targets. It distinguishes itself from clip-editing siblings by explicitly stating 'Navigation only; it never changes clips.'

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 the tool (navigating the playhead) and adds a when-not condition ('never changes clips'). However, it does not name alternative navigation tools like set_playhead_position or move_playhead_to_edit, leaving the agent to infer routing among siblings.

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