set_cursor_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the operation and parameter unit but does not state side effects, whether it affects playback, permissions required, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutating setter.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two short lines covering the operation and the sole parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple one-parameter setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation and parameter unit adequately. However, it omits behavioral context such as side effects or interaction with playback, which the missing annotations would otherwise have to cover.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by defining the position parameter as 'Position in seconds from project start.' This adds necessary unit and origin semantics beyond the bare schema. It could be slightly richer with constraints or valid ranges.

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: 'Set the edit cursor position.' This clearly identifies a mutation operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool get_cursor_position, relying instead on the reader to infer the inverse relationship.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. It only states the operation and parameter meaning, leaving usage entirely implied.

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