Seek to time

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable, non-destructive mutation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by naming the required 'timecode with decimal fraction' format, but it omits what happens if no file is open (error vs no-op) and whether the call returns the resulting position.

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?

Two sentences with the action stated first and the format constraint second; no waste. The nested quoting around "timecode with decimal fraction" is slightly clumsy but does not impede comprehension.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the basics are covered. Still missing are the failure mode when no file is open and the return value (e.g. resulting position), which an agent would want before invoking a seek repeatedly.

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 description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description carries some burden, and it does add the non-obvious constraint that the string form must follow the 'timecode with decimal fraction' format. However, it says nothing about the numeric-seconds alternative or about how the two anyOf branches relate, and the word 'default' hints at a configurable format without clarifying what happens when the format setting differs.

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 and resource: moves the playhead of the open file to a given time. That is clearly distinct from segment-oriented siblings like add_segment or set_cut_points, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with jump_to_segment, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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 phrase 'the open file' implies a file must already be open, but there is no explicit prerequisite statement and no guidance on when to choose this over jump_to_segment or set_cut_points. The agent must infer the selection rule from the sibling names alone.

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