go_to_previous_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly discloses that the tool only moves the playhead rather than modifying media, but it does not mention preconditions such as needing an active sequence or what happens at the first edit point when no previous cut exists.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the action, target, and timeline context efficiently.

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-parameter navigation tool this is close to sufficient, but without annotations or an output schema the description should ideally mention the active-sequence precondition and boundary behavior. Those omissions keep it at minimum viable rather than complete.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter behavior for the description to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 precise verb and target: move the playhead to the previous edit point (cut) on the timeline. The word 'previous' distinguishes it clearly from the sibling go_to_next_edit, and 'playhead' plus 'edit point/cut' make the resource and scope unambiguous.

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 operation is self-explanatory once the purpose is read, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this versus go_to_next_edit, set_playhead, step_backward, or go_to_in_point. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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