step_backward

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the action. It does not say whether this moves the playhead versus a player transport, what happens at the sequence start, whether playback must be stopped first, or whether the operation is instantaneous.

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 quantified by the unit. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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?

A one-parameter navigation tool with no output schema is simple enough that the description is nearly sufficient, but the missing preconditions (active sequence, playhead vs transport) leave an agent guessing about call context.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its type and default of 1. The description adds no format, range, or negative-value semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and unit ('Step backward by a number of frames') that an agent can map directly to timeline/playhead navigation. It is naturally distinguishable from step_forward by name, but the description itself never names or contrasts that sibling.

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 only implied by the tool name – frame-accurate navigation. There is no statement of when to prefer this over set_playhead, go_to_previous_edit, or step_forward, and no mention of prerequisites such as an active sequence.

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