step_forward

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

No annotations at all, so the description carries the full burden and says very little. It does not disclose whether stepping clamps at the sequence end, whether it affects selection or scrolls the timeline view, or whether the operation is undoable — all relevant for a transport control.

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 short sentence with the unit front and center. Nothing wasted, 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?

For a one-optional-parameter transport tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, but the missing 'what moves' (the playhead) and boundary behavior leave real gaps given there are no annotations to fall back 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and already documents 'frames' with its default of 1; the description merely restates 'by a number of frames'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra syntax or constraints.

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 action ('step forward') with an explicit unit ('by a number of frames'), and its mirror sibling step_backward makes the family obvious. It never says what is being stepped — presumably the playhead — so the acted-upon object must be inferred from context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus play, set_playhead, go_to_next_edit, or step_backward. The only hint is the implicit mirror relationship with step_backward, which the reader must construct.

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