Offset Media Input Cursor

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

Annotations already establish that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond restating the tool's function. It does not mention edge-case behavior like out-of-range offsets or whether media must be playing, but this is a simple operation.

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 a single, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is precisely front-loaded and every word is meaningful.

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 mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is adequately complete. It could be improved by mentioning that the offset is relative and contrasting with the absolute setter, but the overall context is sufficient for a simple operation.

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 input schema provides a 100% description coverage for both parameters ('Name of the media input' and 'Value to offset the current cursor position by (in milliseconds)'). The description adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema already contains, so baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Offsets') with a clear resource ('current cursor position of a media input'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'obs-set-media-input-cursor' by indicating a relative adjustment rather than an absolute set.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'offsets', suggesting relative position changes, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'obs-set-media-input-cursor' or other media input tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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