move_playhead_to_edit

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose side effects and context. It only labels itself 'expanded operation' and says it moves the playhead; it doesn't say whether it is read-only, whether it requires an active sequence, or how it chooses the edit point (next/previous/nearest).

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 very short and the operative phrase is clear, but the 'Premiere Pro expanded operation:' prefix is filler and does not add information. Still, it is front-loaded and not bloated.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is the only specification of behavior, yet it leaves the meaning of 'edit' and the tool's operating context (active sequence, direction) ambiguous. A one-line phrase is not enough to confidently invoke the operation correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no parameter burden. The 0-parameter baseline applies; the description correctly contains no parameter syntax details.

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 uses a concrete verb ('move') and identifies the resource ('playhead') and target ('edit'), giving a general sense of the operation. However, it never clarifies what 'edit' means (edit point, in/out point, selected cut), and it does not differentiate the tool from close siblings such as set_playhead_position or get_next_edit_point.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. It does not mention active sequence/selection or any alternative tools, so an agent cannot decide between this and set_playhead_position/match_frame.

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