move_audio_warp_marker

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

Annotations have readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is ambiguous because the tool can mutate (apply) or just plan. The description adds key behavior: preserves sample position, rejects neighbor crossing and hidden terminal marker, and the dry-run/confirm pattern (implied by 'Plan or apply'). This contextualizes the safety profile beyond annotations.

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 tight, three-sentence summary that front-loads the core action, then lists key constraints. Every sentence adds essential information without fluff.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and complex plan/apply logic, the description covers the critical workflow (dry-run for plan, confirmationToken for apply) and validation rules. It does not explain return values (e.g., planHash structure) but the planHash parameter is mentioned. It could benefit from stating what happens if constraints are violated, but overall sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that beatTime is the 'exact current marker beat time from audio state' and targetBeatTime is 'requested', and by explaining the dry-run/planHash/confirmationToken workflow. This reduces ambiguity in the plan-vs-apply sequence.

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 specific verb ('Plan or apply movement') and resource ('exact audio warp marker') to a 'target beat', and clearly distinguishes from siblings like add/remove_audio_warp_marker by emphasizing exact marker movement and preservation of sample position. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative, relying on the verb difference.

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 implies when to use this tool (when moving an existing warp marker to a specific beat) and mentions constraints (rejects neighbor crossing and hidden terminal marker). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like add or remove, but the context is clear.

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