go_to_in_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It makes clear this is a navigation action that repositions the playhead and does not alter content, but it omits whether an active sequence must exist, what happens if no in point is set, or whether the move is relative to the active sequence only.

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 with no wasted words. Slightly more precision on whose in point (the active sequence's) would have made it airtight, but the sizing is appropriate for a trivial navigation tool.

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 zero-param navigation tool with no output schema this is close to adequate, but an agent still cannot tell from the description whether it operates on the active sequence implicitly or fails when no sequence is open.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the description correctly implies no input is needed since the destination is fixed. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing further to document.

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 (Move) and resource (the playhead) plus the exact destination (the sequence in point), which is meaningful against siblings like go_to_start or go_to_out_point. It does not explicitly contrast with set_playhead, which also moves the playhead, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 usage is strongly implied by the name and description — jump the playhead to the in point — but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives (set_playhead for arbitrary positions, go_to_out_point for the other boundary) or preconditions such as an active sequence being required.

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