Move a media item to a specific time position in seconds within a track, enabling precise timeline placement during REAPER editing or mixing workflows.
Set the position of a media item.
Args: position: New position in seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position | Yes | ||
| item_index | Yes | ||
| track_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about how the item is identified (track_index/item_index), whether position is absolute in the project timeline or relative, or what happens to overlapping items at the new location.
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 short sentences plus an Args block; the core statement is front-loaded and there is no filler. The 'Args:' boilerplate is slightly redundant given a structured schema, but the entry is tight.
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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented required parameters, the description is too thin. It lacks enough detail for an agent to invoke it correctly beyond the single 'position' argument.
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 0% for three required parameters. The description documents only 'position' (in seconds) and leaves track_index and item_index completely unexplained, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 gives a clear verb + resource: 'Set the position of a media item.' An agent can tell it moves an item's timeline placement, distinct from set_item_length or set_item_volume. However, it does not name or differentiate itself against those nearby siblings.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_item_length, duplicate_item, or split_item, nor any prerequisites (e.g. which track/item must be selected). Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.