arrangement_jump_marker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the action and direction semantics, but it does not mention edge cases such as what happens when no next/previous marker exists, whether invalid direction values are allowed, or whether playback state changes.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the action, states the resource, and defines the only parameter's semantics. Every word earns its place with no repetition of the tool name or schema details.

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 one-parameter navigation tool with no output schema, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around edge-case behavior and invalid direction values, but they do not prevent effective use in normal marker-jumping scenarios.

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 input schema only defines an integer 'direction' with a default of 1 and 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates well by explicitly mapping +1 to next marker and -1 to previous marker, giving the parameter actionable meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Jump playhead'), the target resource ('marker'), and the scope ('within current arrangement'). It also explains the direction parameter meaning (+1/-1), making the tool easy to tell apart from transport_jog, transport_set_position, or pattern_jump_to_next/previous.

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 gives clear context: this is for moving the playhead between markers in the current arrangement, not for arbitrary transport movement or pattern navigation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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