Move edit cursor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Move' implies a non-destructive state change (edit cursor position), which is less risky than a destructive operation. Yet the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it affect playback? Does it require an open project? Does it change undo state?) which is important for an agent to anticipate.

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 description is a single sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and directly communicates the parameter meaning. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple: one parameter with a clear unit. Given no output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could briefly mention that the edit cursor position changes in the project timeline, which might affect subsequent operations like inserting items or recording. That gap is minor.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameter. It states the unit is secondsable, which is exactly what the schema lacks. With one parameter and clear semantics, this is a strong contribution beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('move') and resource ('edit cursor') and specifies the action is to move it to a time position in seconds. It is distinct from siblings like reaper_set_tempo, which changes tempo, and reaper_transport, which controls playback, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 context implies usage: when an agent needs to set the edit cursor to a specific time in the project. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., reaper_transport for playback control) and no mention of typical scenarios like scrubbing or editing. Compared to a tool with no usage guidance, this is adequate but not rich.

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