go_to_start

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 does disclose the effect (playhead repositioned to sequence start), but says nothing about which sequence is targeted (presumably the active one), what happens if no sequence is open, or whether it is a pure navigation state change versus an edit.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place and the effect is stated immediately.

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 simple, zero-parameter navigation tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but it omits the key operational precondition: that it acts on the active sequence and will fail or no-op otherwise. That gap is the main thing an agent could stumble on.

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 is 4; the description correctly implies the target position is fixed rather than user-supplied. Nothing further is needed from the description on the parameter side.

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 (playhead to the start of the sequence), so the effect is unambiguous. It does not name or contrast with the obvious siblings (go_to_in_point, go_to_end, set_playhead), leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 go_to_in_point (which is identical when the in point is at zero), go_to_previous_edit, or set_playhead with an explicit time. The usage is only implied by the name and the one-line description.

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