Jump to segment

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

The annotations already state it is not read-only and not destructive, and the description usefully confirms the mutation: the current segment and the playhead both change. However, it does not disclose what happens at boundaries (for example, requesting 'next' on the last segment) or how the previous current segment is affected, which matters for a state-mutating tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary effect and adds the secondary playhead effect without waste. Nothing should be removed.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core effect but omits boundary behavior and what the caller observes after the jump. That is a meaningful gap for state-changing navigation.

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 input schema gives the enum values but no per-value meaning, and the description refers only to 'another segment' without explaining first/last/next/previous. The one parameter an agent must choose carefully is essentially undocumented in prose.

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 concrete verb ('Makes another segment the current one') and a concrete secondary effect ('moves the playhead to its start'). This is a clear statement of what the tool does, though it doesn't differentiate itself from navigation-flavored siblings such as seek or select_segments.

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 description gives no guidance about when to choose this tool rather than seek or select_segments, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The effect it describes implies a navigation use case, but that is left entirely to inference.

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