jump_to_arrangement_cue_point

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

The description says 'plan or move' which indicates a mutation, consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it does not disclose the mandatory dry-run/confirmation flow, the state change of moving the playhead, or that it returns a plan hash and token. Annotations already signal mutation, but the description adds little beyond that and omits critical behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action immediately. However, it is so brief that it omits essential operational details, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite its efficiency.

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 has a complex two-phase execution model (dry run then confirmation) with five parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain this flow, leaving an agent unaware that a dry run is required before executing a move. For a tool of this complexity, the description is significantly incomplete.

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%, so all five parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters such as dryRun, planHash, confirmationToken, or expectedStateVersion. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 states a clear verb (plan or move) and resource (playhead to an Arrangement cue point). It is specific enough to distinguish from general transport tools like transport_play, but it does not mention the two-phase dry-run/confirmation pattern, which is central to the tool's behavior.

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 tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for jumping to cue points, nor does it exclude other transport methods. Siblings like transport_play, list_arrangement_cue_points, and create_arrangement_cue_point exist, but no differentiation is provided.

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