go_to_next_edit

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It correctly implies a non-destructive playhead move with no argument, but says nothing about behavior at the last edit on the timeline, whether it wraps, or what happens with no active sequence open — real gaps for a navigation tool.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately scoped to the target; every word earns its place and there is no 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 trivial zero-parameter navigation tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should still say what renders the call a no-op (already at final cut, no sequence open) — an agent cannot infer that.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it doesn't waste words inventing any.

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?

Specific verb ('Move the playhead') plus resource ('the next edit point (cut) on the timeline'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling go_to_previous_edit. It doesn't explicitly name that sibling or state the direction-of-travel contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description (navigation between cuts), but there is no statement of when to prefer this over go_to_previous_edit, step_forward, or go_to_in_point/out_point, and no preconditions (e.g., requires an active sequence) are given.

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