move_warp_marker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The parenthetical 'stretches the audio around it' adds genuine value by disclosing a side effect the agent would not otherwise know. What's missing is whether the move is reversible (undo), and whether warp must be active.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the action, the key parameters and the physical consequence, with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a stateful audio-editing mutation the description omits prerequisites (warp mode on the clip) and how the target clip is identified among session vs arrangement clips.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It does clarify the two most important ones (beat_time is the marker position, distance is an offset in beats), which is real added meaning. However track_index, clip_index and arrangement get no explanation at all, leaving more than half the parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Move the warp marker') and ties it to named parameters, which is far clearer than the bare tool name. It implicitly separates itself from add_warp_marker/remove_warp_marker by being a move operation, but never states that differentiation explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the sibling warp-marker tools, nor any prerequisite such as the clip needing warp mode enabled or the marker already existing. The agent must infer all of that from the tool name alone.

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