go_to_region

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral fact: it moves the *edit* cursor rather than the play cursor. However, it says nothing about whether the region must exist, what happens on an out-of-range index, or any other side effect.

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?

One efficient, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than padding.

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 one-param navigation tool the definition is minimally viable, but with 0% schema coverage and no output schema the unexplained region_index and lack of relation to get_regions leave a real gap an agent must close by trial and error.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. The single parameter 'region_index' is never explained — no index origin (0- vs 1-based), no hint that it comes from get_regions. An agent must guess the valid range.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Move the edit cursor to a region start.' An agent can distinguish it from navigation siblings like go_to_marker by the region target. It does not explicitly call out that distinction, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related go_to_marker alternative or get_regions for enumerating valid targets. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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