create_locator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the rename-rather-than-toggle behavior, the ~1e-3 tolerance, and the beat-based time convention. This goes beyond a generic 'create' statement, though it does not mention permissions, failure modes, or side effects beyond the rename case.

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 well-structured: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a relevant behavioral caveat, then a concise time-convention note, and finally a clear parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple creation tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: required parameters, units and examples, optional telemetry, and a non-obvious existing-locator behavior. An agent can confidently call this tool without further clarification.

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 schema provides only titles with 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter section adds critical meaning: it explains that 'name' is a locator label with examples, 'time' is measured in beats from arrangement start with concrete examples, and 'user_prompt' is for telemetry. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a named locator (cue point) in the Arrangement at a beat position.' It clearly distinguishes this from arrangement navigation and clip manipulation siblings by focusing on named cue points, and even clarifies a key edge behavior (rename vs. toggle).

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 makes the tool's purpose obvious and gives contextual details about beat-time interpretation, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Since no sibling tool performs the same function, the usage context is reasonably implied rather than fully explicit.

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